Important High Court Judgments On BNS, BNSS & BSA : Anniversary Special Edition
Learn Comparable Judgments From Delhi High Court, Gauhati High Court, Madras High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case title – Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And three Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has noticed that in a specific case, if the FIR is lodged on or after July 1, 2024 (the date of graduation of three New Prison Legal guidelines), for an offence dedicated earlier than that date, it might be registered beneath the provisions of the IPC. Nonetheless, the investigation will proceed as per Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court docket additionally held that in a specific case, if the investigation is pending on July 1, 2024, the investigation will proceed as per the CrPC; nevertheless, the cognizance of the police report might be taken as per the process laid down beneath the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case title – Vipin Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. Via. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Residence Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
Case quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 175
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has just lately noticed that neither an individual will be denied bail nor his bail plea be opposed primarily on the bottom that extracts of the case diary had been annexed along with his bail plea.
Through the listening to, the informant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the bail utility, contending that the accused had entry to the case diary and had even annexed copies of sure extracts with the bail plea, which indicated that he may affect the course of the investigation.
Rejecting this submission, the bench famous that Part 230 BNSS (Provide to accused of copy of police report and different paperwork) itself offers a mandate to the Justice of the Peace that upon look of the accused, he shall furnish to the accused copies of the police report, copies of the statements recorded beneath Part 180(3), the confessions and statements recorded beneath Part 183 and some other doc forwarded to the Justice of the Peace with the police report back to the accused.
Case title – Raman Sahni vs. State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Residence Lko 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
Case quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 201
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has noticed that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Prison Process Code (UP Modification) Act, 2018 – which imposed restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail within the State (efficient from June 6, 2019), in instances beneath particular legal guidelines together with the UP Gangsters Act – stands ‘impliedly repealed‘.
A bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh noticed that when a State amends a legislation on a topic in the Concurrent Checklist, and the Parliament later makes a change to that very same legislation, the State legislation should give option to the Parliament’s legislation, even when the stated legislation provides to, modifications, or repeals the legislation made by the legislature of the State.
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Smt. Parisha Trivedi & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh
The Chhattisgarh Excessive Court docket just lately pointed that Part 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has widened the discretion conferred upon a legal court docket wile deciding the anticipatory bail plea of an individual apprehending arrest.
Justice Goutam Bhaduri highlighted that the legislature has deleted the “guiding components”, contained within the erstwhile CrPC, from the corresponding anticipatory bail provision in BNSS.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has noticed that process with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged previous to enforcement of recent legal legal guidelines must be ruled by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of submitting such utility is on or after July 1, 2024.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reasoned that Part 531(2)(a) BNSS prescribes that proceedings have to be continued and disposed of beneath the Code of Prison Process (Cr.P.C.) “solely in instances the place they had been pending” instantly earlier than July 01.
Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Although Its Director
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Giving a “potential interpretation” of Part 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi Excessive Court docket stated that provided that an attraction is pending earlier than the new legislation got here into pressure, can such an attraction be continued beneath the Cr.P.C.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stated, “As per the final, settled precept of legislation, an attraction is taken into account to be a continuation of the trial. Nevertheless, the wording of part 531(2)(a) of the BNSS is amenable to a potential interpretation that if an attraction is pending earlier than the approaching into pressure of the BNSS, solely then would such attraction be continued beneath the Cr.P.C.”
Title: Suleman Samad V. State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has dominated that the trial courts should promptly go orders and should not mechanically adjourn bail purposes moved in instances lined by Part 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the place the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the utmost imprisonment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that in case a decide proceeds on depart, it have to be dropped at the discover of the involved Hyperlink Decide that such instances are to be taken up on precedence, both on the following date or on the shortest potential date.
The Delhi Excessive Court docket has made it clear that an accused beneath the Arms Act, 1959 can not search default bail beneath Part 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the bottom that the chargesheet filed in opposition to him when it comes to Part 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction beneath Part 39 of the Arms Act is obligatory to prosecute an individual for offences beneath Sections 25/ 27.
Justice Tejas Karia conceded that if an incomplete chargesheet is filed by the prosecution, it provides rise to the proper of default bail, even when the identical is filed throughout the prescribed interval.
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Ritumani Deka v. The Union of India & Ors.
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 96
The Gauhati Excessive Court docket just lately requested Assam’s Director Normal of Police to subject vital path to the police stations beneath his jurisdiction, to not register any case beneath Part 106 (2) of the BNS–pertaining to loss of life by rash driving which isn’t culpable murder–which has not come into pressure until date.
Case Title: Bittu Kumar v State of Assam (Bail Appln./1662/2025)
The Gauhati Excessive Court docket, in an order dated June 2, emphasised that in instances the place an arrestee will not be produced earlier than the Justice of the Peace inside 24 hours of arrest resulting from medical urgency, the Justice of the Peace should confirm the standing of such arrestee. The court docket remarked that even in such instances the Justice of the Peace has to, both by way of a private go to or video conferencing, confirm the standing of the arrestee by passing a remand order to judicial or police custody.
The bench of Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held, “Part 187 of BNSS categorically states that topic to situation of bail, the Justice of the Peace could authorize his detention both in judicial or in police custody. Until, such an order is handed, the preliminary arrest of the petitioner past the interval of 24 hours from the time of his arrest, would turn into unlawful“.
Case Title: Nazir Hussain & 3 Ors. v. State of Assam
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, on granting anticipatory bail will apply to offences both beneath Part 65 or Part 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The Court docket held that the phrase “and” showing in Part 482(4) have to be learn as “or” to provide impact to the intention of the legislature.
The Court docket famous that it was unlikely that an individual could be accused of each these offences. Therefore, to carry that the embargo will apply solely if an individual is accused of each Part 65 and Part 70(2) could be absurd.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Bhupesh Thakur Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Clarifying the restrictions of Part 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, notably in instances involving transgender people the Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket has clarified {that a} transgender can not invoke Part 69 of the which penalizes sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage.
Whereas explaining the precise mandate of Sec 69 and confirming the interim bail of an accused Justice Sandeep Sharma noticed, “Since beneath BNS, “lady” and “transgender” have been given totally different identification and have been outlined independently, beneath Part 2 coupled with the truth that bodily relationship inter-se sufferer prosecutrix and bail petitioner, if any, was developed previous to surgical procedure of victim-prosecutrix, whereby she allegedly bought her intercourse modified, there seems to be pressure within the declare of the bail petitioner that he couldn’t have been booked beneath Part 69 of the BNS, relatively he’s required to be handled when it comes to the beneath Part 18 (d) of the Act”.
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Case Title: Mohd Ismail Koka Vs State of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 150
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket, whereas invoking its inherent powers beneath Part 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has held that the availability has an overriding impact and isn’t to be learn as topic to Part 359 of the BNSS (comparable to Part 320 of the CrPC).
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani thus quashed an FIR registered beneath Sections 452 (trespass) and 376B (marital rape) of the IPC, emphasizing that the extraordinary powers beneath Part 528 will be exercised to safe the ends of justice, particularly in matrimonial disputes the place events have amicably settled.
Case Title: Mohd Afzal Beigh Vs Noor Hussain
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 177
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket has clarified that the provisions of Part 142 of the Negotiable Devices Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) don’t bar Magistrates from adhering to the pre-cognizance discover necessities beneath Part 223 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani emphasised that whereas the N.I. Act mandates particular procedures for complaints beneath Part 138 (cheque dishonour), the issuance of pre-cognizance notices to the accused beneath BNSS stays permissible and “justice-oriented.”
Deciphering the mandate of Part 142 N.I. Act the Court docket famous that Part 142 begins with a “Non-obstante” clause, overriding the final CrPC/BNSS procedures. Nevertheless, it solely bars cognizance primarily based on police stories (not complaints) and mandates a written grievance by the payee inside one month of the reason for motion. The Court docket clarified that this doesn’t exclude the Justice of the Peace’s discretion to subject pre-cognizance notices beneath Part 223 BNSS, which aids in assessing the accused’s defence early.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar & Others Vs UT Of J&Okay
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 200
Shedding mild on the Legislative intent behind the availability of permitting the deferment of Cross-examination of a prosecution witness beneath the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an utility for deferment of cross-examination of a witness or a set of witnesses have to be filed as early as potential however in any case, earlier than the graduation of cross-examination, for as soon as the defence technique is uncovered, the thing of such deferral pales into insignificance.
Case Title: Aamina & Ors Vs Aamir Ahmad Mir & Ors
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 215
Deciphering the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Excessive Court docket of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that an order merely issuing discover in a continuing is interlocutory in nature and, subsequently, not amenable to revisional jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, whereas dismissing a petition filed beneath Part 528 of BNSS, reaffirmed that Part 438(2) of the BNSS creates a statutory bar in opposition to exercising revisional powers in relation to such interlocutory orders.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others
Quotation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has held that as per Part 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody have to be sought throughout the first forty days in instances of offences that are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment
It clarified that the phrasing utilized in Part 187 BNSS is an offence punishable “for ten years or extra”, explaining that 10 years or extra would imply that the threshold punishment is 10 years and never a punishment as much as 10 years. The court docket stated that if the punishment time period is between 1-10 years then Part 187(3) BNSS can’t be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years have to be accomplished in 60 days.
Case Title: Okay Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director
Quotation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket whereas rejecting a bail plea of accused beneath Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, stated that petitioner can not invoke the proviso to Part 479 BNSS on the bottom of one-third punishment interval undergone, including that it was not relevant on the information of the case since a number of instances had been registered in opposition to him.
Justice HP Sandesh in its order noticed that Part 479 of BNSS makes it clear that the advantage of first proviso to Part 479 is topic to Part 479(2) of BNSS and the Court docket has to pay attention to the third proviso, thereof, whereby investigation, inquiry or trial in a couple of offence are in a number of instances are pending in opposition to a individual, he shall not be launched on bail by the Court docket.
Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka
Quotation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) got here into pressure, the police registering an FIR beneath the repealed Prison Process Code, is wrong.
A single decide bench of Justice Okay Natarajan, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition filed by Arunkumar and quashed the FIR registered in opposition to him beneath Part 376, 323, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on July 1.
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
Quotation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Clarifying the process to be adopted by magisterial courts on issuance of discover on complaints beneath Part 223 BNSS, the Karnataka Excessive Court docket Friday underlined that the alternative of listening to to be supplied to the accused within the provision will not be an empty formality, with out which cognizance can’t be taken.
Justice M Nagaprasanna handed the order whereas listening to a petition filed by BJP chief and MLA Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) who had approached the court docket questioning the discover issued to him by the magisterial court docket on the defamation grievance filed by Shivananda S Patil. The petitioner had claimed that the discover issued to him didn’t comply with the process as per legislation.
Learn Comparable order from Kerala High Court
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Quotation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has stated that within the occasion a discover issued by the police summoning a citizen beneath Part 35 of the BNSS doesn’t comprise the crime quantity, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, topic to only exceptions, the noticee will not be obliged to seem earlier than the officer who has directed him to seem and no coercive motion will be taken in opposition to him.
A single decide bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna stated “Summoning to the Police Station will not be summoning an individual to a contented place. A citizen should know as to why he’s being summoned.”
Case Title: Okay Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has stated that earlier than initiating a grievance beneath Part 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false proof or fabricating paperwork–a court docket should apply its judicial thoughts and are available to a conclusion with causes that it’s vital to carry a preliminary inquiry or provoke a grievance.
The petitioner had approached the excessive court docket questioning session court docket’s January 23 order whereby the workplace was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false proof. This occurred after respondent/plaintiff filed an utility beneath Part 379 learn with Part 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant “filed a false affidavit, which quantities to perjury”.
Case Title: Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad
Quotation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka HIgh Court docket has stated that the process of listening to the accused on the stage of taking cognizance of the grievance as prescribed within the first proviso to Part 223 of BNSS shall not apply to the complaints for offence made beneath Part 138 of Negotiable Devices Act.
For context, Part 223 of BNSS makes a departure from the sooner provision contained in Part 200 Cr.P.C. Beneath the proviso to Sub-Part (1) of 223, the Justice of the Peace can not take cognizance of an offence, with out giving the accused a possibility of being heard.
A single decide, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus whereas dismissing a petition filed by one Ashok who had approached the court docket questioning the cognizance order taken by the Justice of the Peace court docket on the grievance filed by one Fayaz Aahmad with out issuing him a discover for listening to.
KERALA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sunil Rajan Okay. v Inspector of Police and One other
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala Excessive Court docket held the standards for the Justice of the Peace to direct any individual to provide voice pattern beneath Part 349 of BNSS is the satisfaction of the Justice of the Peace that such pattern is required for the aim of investigation.
“Beneath Part 349, the standards is the satisfaction of the Justice of the Peace that it’s expedient to direct any individual to offer his voice pattern, once more, for the needs of the investigation or continuing beneath BNSS. Due to this fact, the thrust is upon the query whether or not the voice pattern is required for the aim of investigation of the crime” Justice C. Jayachandran held.
Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala Excessive Court docket has held that the restrict of 60 days supplied in Part 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is listing and never obligatory. Justice A. Badharudeen additional held that the interval of 60 days will begin from the date of provide of copies of paperwork to the accused.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala Excessive Court docket has held that safety afforded to an accused of unsound thoughts or with mental incapacity beneath the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and can thus apply retrospectively, to pending purposes.
Justice Okay Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings previous to July 01, 2024, to guarantee honest trial for individuals with mental incapacity or psychological incapacity.
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala Excessive Court docket allowed the bail utility of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime beneath Part 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Part 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a unbroken legal exercise dedicated by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Part 111 (1)(i) defines ‘organized crime syndicate’ and Part 111 (1) (ii) defines ‘persevering with illegal exercise’.
Justice C S Dias noticed that prime facie an offence beneath Part 111 (1) will not be attracted in opposition to the petitioner since no cost sheet has been filed in opposition to him in any Court docket within the ‘previous interval of final ten years’ to fulfill the mandate of ‘persevering with illegal exercise’ as outlined beneath Part 111(1) (ii).
Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala Excessive Court docket just lately held that the advantage of Part 479 of BNSS, notably the primary proviso thereof, can’t be utilized retrospectively to convicted prisoners. For context, Part 479 BNSS offers with the utmost time frame for which a undertrial prisoner will be detained.
Justice C. S. Sudha famous that the Supreme Court docket by an order within the case of Re-Inhuman Circumstances in 1382 Prisons has made Part 479 retrospectively relevant to undertrials in instances registered earlier than July 1, 2024. The Excessive Court docket stated that the Apex Court docket has not given the advantage of the Part to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court docket stated it can not lengthen the profit to convicts.
Case Title: Okay. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala and One other
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Remarking that Indian jails are properly geared up to cope with any casualties to prisoners, the Kerala Excessive Court docket has noticed that an individual arrested in severe offences can’t be launched on bail merely by claiming to be ‘sick’ and counting on the primary proviso to Part 480(1) of BNSS.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan acknowledged that the primary proviso to Part 480(1) BNSS is relevant solely in instances the place a jail Medical Officer submits a report that the prisoner can not be given medical remedy throughout the jail facility. It additionally famous that bail could also be given in instances the place the prisoner is nearing the top of his life.
Case Title: P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala Excessive Court docket has held that the aiding provision of Part 70 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the corresponding Part 71 of the Indian Proof Act can’t be resorted to by the propounder of a Will by diluting the obligatory provisions beneath Part 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
One of many substantial questions of legislation for consideration of the Court docket was whether or not the genuineness of the Will could possibly be established within the circumstances in Part 71 of the IEA/ Part 70 of the BSA.
Answering the questioning within the affirmative, the Single Decide put aside the concurrent findings of the trial court docket and the primary appellate court docket, and located that within the current case, the ‘different proof’ as required beneath Setion 70 of the BSA can be utilized to show the Will for the reason that testifying witnesses had denied the execution of the identical.
Police Cannot Attach Bank Account Under S.107 BNSS Without Magistrate’s Approval : Kerala High Court
Case title: Headstar International Pvt. Ltd. V. State Of Kerala & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala Excessive Court docket held {that a} checking account will be connected beneath Part 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, solely on the orders of the jurisdictional Justice of the Peace and that police can not uniterally achieve this.
The Court docket famous that the CrPC earlier lacked a particular provision for seizure or attachment of proceeds of crime, besides beneath Chapter VII-A regarding overseas jurisdictions. This hole has been addressed beneath BNSS, 2023, by retaining Part 102 as Part 106 and introducing Part 107, which now governs the attachment of properties derived from legal exercise.
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras Excessive Court docket just lately noticed that the offence beneath Part 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could possibly be filed for these offence solely after getting acceptable orders from the Justice of the Peace.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed in opposition to the person. Although the court docket famous that the FIR itself was not sustainable in legislation and thus the anticipatory bail was additionally not maintainable, the court docket thought it match to train its jurisdiction beneath Part 482 of CrPC and intervene with the FIR.
Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras Excessive Court docket has emphasised that the time period “offences in opposition to ladies” which is excluded from plea bargaining would imply solely gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and never non-gender offences dedicated in opposition to ladies.
“Offences like harassment to lady beneath the Particular Act or sexual offences, legal pressure and assault in opposition to lady or offences associated to marriage had been the sufferer is the girl will fall beneath gender centric/gender impartial offences. Not like I.P.C thankfully, the Bharathiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) has introduced all these offences beneath one chapter and grouped in Chapter V of BNS beneath the caption “of offences in opposition to lady and youngster.” Within the thought of view of this Court docket, solely these offences will fall beneath gender centric or gender impartial offences to draw the expression “offence in opposition to a girl” and be excluded from the scope of plea bargaining,” the court docket noticed.
Case Title: R v B
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 414
In a latest choice, the Madras Excessive Court docket has famous that the Central Authorities has notified solely a handful of entities as consultants beneath Part 79A of the Info Expertise Act whose certificates had been vital beneath Part 63 (4) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam for admitting digital proof.
Noting that no consultants are notified in Tamil Nadu, Justice GR Swaminathan held that absence of consultants would deny the proper of entry to justice which is a basic proper. The court docket opined that consultants must be notified expeditiously to commensurate with the potential demand. The court docket thus directed the Ministry of Electronics and Info Expertise (Meity) to inform consultants inside 3 months.
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Case Title: Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 25
The Orissa Excessive Court docket has held {that a} Justice of the Peace can order investigation in opposition to a public servant solely after complying with the necessities supplied beneath Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), i.e. upon receiving report containing information and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him and after contemplating the assertions made by the general public servant as to the scenario that led to the incident so alleged.
Case Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit Pati
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35
The Orissa Excessive Court docket has held that it’s not obligatory on the a part of Court docket to carry a preliminary inquiry as supplied beneath Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into fee of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make grievance.
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Case title: AXXXXX v. State of Punjab and others
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 256
The Punjab & Haryana Excessive Court docket has made it clear {that a} Excessive Court docket beneath Part 528 BNSS can entertain a plea for registering an FIR and monitoring an investigation by forming a Particular Investigating Staff (SIT) however the complainant ought to present a enough cause for not approaching the Ilaqa Justice of the Peace first
Justice Sumeet Goel stated, “In a given case, if the information/circumstances so warrant, the Excessive Court docket is properly inside its jurisdiction to entertain and think about plea(s) searching for registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Particular Investigating Staff), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such form and nature. Nevertheless, it might be prudent that an applicant/complainant, whereas searching for to invoke the jurisdiction of a Excessive Court docket beneath Part 528 of BNSS, 2023 within the first occasion searching for prayer(s) of above nature, exhibits enough trigger for not having approached the Illaqa/Jurisdictional Justice of the Peace within the first occasion.”
Title: Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa v. State of Punjab
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 118
In a major improvement, the Punjab & Haryana Excessive Court docket has stated that case involving small amount beneath the NDPS Act is “Bailable” by operation of BNSS and accused might be entitled for bail with out submitting bail utility.
The case pertains to the alleged restoration of 1 gram of heroin. Whereas setting apart the order rejecting pre-arrest bail the Court docket stated, “when the contravention beneath the NDPS Act includes ‘Small Amount’, the offences are ‘Bailable’. When the drug amount falls in small class, the offence is bailable by operation of BNSS, 2023. Thus, any individual accused of such an offence is entitled to bail with out submitting any bail utility, topic to furnishing the requisite bail bonds.”
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and different linked petition
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has dominated that Article 20(3) of the Structure of India solely states that accused couldn’t be compelled to be a witness in opposition to himself and never that the accused couldn’t be compelled to be a witness in any respect.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain additional noticed that beneath Part 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Justice of the Peace to direct people, together with the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.
Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket quashed an FIR filed by the police on instructions from the CJM primarily based on a grievance beneath Part 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp choice making” and observing full judicial oversight on a part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial thoughts was utilized for making an impartial dedication concerning prima facie existence of the case in opposition to the accused.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Bisu & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has dominated that Part 233 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 leaves little question that even when grievance proceedings are already present process in relation to specific allegations and information, and the police officers obtain a report/compliant on the identical set of information, they aren’t barred from registering an FIR on these information.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga added that the one obligatory process was that the Justice of the Peace shall keep the additional proceedings within the grievance case that was instituted previous to registration of the FIR, to await for the result of the inquiry/investigation.
Title: Ashraj Stone Personal Restricted v Karav Worldwide
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has clarified that in instances the place the complainant is a ‘sufferer’ of crime, as outlined beneath Part 2(y) of BNSS, s/he’s not required to desire an utility earlier than the Excessive Court docket searching for depart to attraction in opposition to acquittal, as is supplied beneath Part 419(4) of BNSS.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar clarified {that a} depart to attraction was required by the complainant, as talked about beneath Part 419(4), in instances the place the complainant was not the sufferer. Since legal proceedings could possibly be set in movement by anybody having information of fee of any cognizable offences, if a grievance was filed by an individual who was not a sufferer, then such individual would wish a depart of attraction beneath this provision.
Title: Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has clarified that in mild of proviso to Part 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), the place the police has already filed the report following investigation in opposition to the prime accused, no additional investigation can be carried out with out the permission of the trial court docket.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was listening to a quashing petition in opposition to FIR filed for dishonest and legal breach of belief by which 4 cost sheets had been already filed and no function was attributed to the petitioner, neither his identify was arrayed wherever as an accused. The Court docket discovered that no culpability of fee of any offence was attributable to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Mala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket just lately allowed a homicide accused’s plea beneath Part 94 BNSS by treating it as one filed beneath Part 95 BNSS, thereby increasing the availability’s (Part 95) scope within the peculiar information of the case and directed the trial court docket to receive the decision and site particulars of the witnesses within the case.
A single decide bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order noticed that Part 94 of BNSS will be invoked solely both on the occasion of the court docket or the officer in-charge of the police station, who in a given scenario, could think about any doc to be produced for the advantage of the Court docket.
Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma
Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that no particular depart is required to file an attraction beneath Part 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), in opposition to an acquittal order whereby the complainant within the case is the sufferer himself.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar noticed that Part 413 of BNSS corresponded to Part 372, CrPC the place the proviso laid down the proper of a sufferer to attraction in opposition to an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing insufficient compensation.
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket just lately famous that Part 170 of the BNSS conferred “restricted preventive jurisdiction” to the Government Justice of the Peace and that such preventive motion was not a instrument for punitive motion or a substitute for legal process.
Part 170 of BNSS empowers a police officer to arrest an individual with no warrant if they’ve information of a possible fee of cognisable offence and imagine that the fee of offence can’t be in any other case prevented.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the motion of an Government Justice of the Peace in detaining individuals and granting them bail on an extra-statutory situation of manufacturing a personality certificates. The court docket famous that as an alternative of working as a Justice of the Peace beneath a Constitutional democracy, the Government Justice of the Peace had acted like a “Raja” allotting justice a t whim.
