Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: March 2026

SUPREME COURT S.173(3) BNSS Safeguard Against Mechanical Registration Of FIRs On Vague & Doubtful Allegations: Supreme Court Case Title: ASHISH DAVE Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 19369/2025 The Supreme Court has observed that Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is intended to prevent the mechanical registration of FIRs based on vague, speculative or doubtful allegations, even where such allegations are framed as cognizable offences. Highlighting the legislative shift from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regime, the Court explained that Section 173(3) BNSS introduces an additional procedural filter before registration of FIRs in certain categories of offences. HCs Must Decide FIR Quashing Petitions On Merits, Instead Of Disposing Them Asking Police To Follow Arrest Guidelines: Supreme Court Cause Title: MD. MASHOOD & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UP & ORS. The Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the High Courts to dispose of the quashing petition without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to follow the guidelines regarding an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), without determining the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its merit. “…once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court held. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 'No Respect For Law': Allahabad High Court Slams UP Cops Over SC Arrest Guideline Violations & 20+ Hour Delay In Releasing Accused Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97 The Allahabad High Court recently slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026. The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'. For context, in the Satendra Antil case, the Supreme Court recently held that no arrest could be made for offences which are punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment unless the mandatory requirement of serving a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is complied with. Courts Not Bound To Mechanically Direct FIRs U/S 173(4) BNSS Merely Because Victim Belongs To SC/ST Community: Allahabad HC The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case. Make A Contempt Reference If 'Browbeaten' By Police Over Uncomfortable Investigation Orders: Allahabad HC Advises Magistrates Case title - Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115 In a significant order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court noted that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to 'browbeat' Magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly 'uncomfortable' cases are passed by them. A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi firmly advised Magistrates that if any such embarrassment or pressure is faced from any police officer, it is always open to them to make a contempt reference to the High Court. The Court noted that in those cases, where the officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to record an information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence under Section 173 (4) BNSS, it is open to the informant to send substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned. Allahabad High Court Cancels Bail Over Allegations That POCSO Accused's Repeated Molestation Post Release Led To Minor's Suicide Case title - Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131 The Allahabad High Court recently cancelled the bail of a POCSO Accused who allegedly started harassing and...

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: March 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: March 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers