Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest– November 2024
Supreme Court:Jail Superintendents Should Make Special Efforts To Identify Women Prisoners Eligible For Release U/s. 479 Of BNSS: Supreme CourtCase Title: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 PrisonsCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 19) directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section...
Supreme Court:
Case Title: In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 908
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 19) directed Jail Superintendents to make special efforts to identify women prisoners who may qualify for release under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti also directed the authorities to verify and update jail records as there may be cases where a person is accused of heinous crimes but later charges have been framed for a lesser offence, making him eligible for release.
Case Title: Azad Singh Kataria vs. Union Of India
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the various provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with effect from July 1.
Case Title: Azad Singh Kataria vs. Union Of India
While hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Supreme Court today questioned as to whether there should in fact be protective safeguards in place insofar as persons accused of organized crimes are concerned. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter.
Delhi High Court:
Case title: Purshottam Profiles vs. ED
The Delhi High Court will hear a plea on the issue of retrospective application of Section 223 of the BNSS 2023 in a case where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) prior to the law's enactment but the Prosecution Complaint was filed and trial court took cognizance on it after the law came into force.
Gauhati High Court:
Case Title: In Re: XXX v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 82
The Gauhati High Court on Monday held that all pre-arrest bail, regular bail, and criminal petitions filed after July 01, 2024 in respect of FIR registered prior to July 01, 2024 i.e. before coming into force of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) are liable to be filed, under Sections 482, 483 and 528 of the BNSS respectively.
The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Devashis Baruah observed that a plain reading of the provisions of Section 531 of the BNSS, more particularly, saving clause, Sub-Section (2)(a) clearly suggests that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, immediately before the date on which the BNSS comes into force, are liable to be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the CrPC, as in force immediately before such commencement, as if the BNSS has not come into force.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court:
Case Title: Ajeet Kumar Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 320
Criticising the growing trend of directly approaching the High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that bypassing the trial courts in such matters not only burdens the High Court but also disregards the legal protocol, where such petitions should typically be first addressed by the courts below.
“This Court is of the opinion that a petition in terms of Section 483 BNSS corresponding to Section 439 of the repealed Code shall normally be filed, if needed, by either side as a successive one after the disposal of the first application by a competent court”, observed Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani.
Karnataka High Court:
Case Title: K Ramakrishna AND Assistant Director
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 483
The Karnataka High Court while rejecting a bail plea of accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, said that petitioner cannot invoke the proviso to Section 479 BNSS on the ground of one-third punishment period undergone, adding that it was not applicable on the facts of the case since several cases were registered against him.
Justice HP Sandesh in its order observed that Section 479 of BNSS makes it clear that the benefit of first proviso to Section 479 is subject to Section 479(2) of BNSS and the Court has to take note of the third proviso, thereof, wherein investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence are in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court.
Kerala High Court:
Case Title: Sunil Rajan K. v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court held the criteria for the Magistrate to direct any person to give voice sample under Section 349 of BNSS is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that such sample is required for the purpose of investigation.
“Under Section 349, the criteria is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that it is expedient to direct any person to provide his voice sample, again, for the purposes of the investigation or proceeding under BNSS. Therefore, the thrust is upon the question whether the voice sample is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime” Justice C. Jayachandran held.
Madras High Court:
Case Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court recently observed that the offence under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a non-cognizable and bailable offence and an FIR could be filed for these offence only after getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate.
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus quashed an FIR filed against the man. Though the court noted that the FIR itself was not sustainable in law and thus the anticipatory bail was also not maintainable, the court thought it fit to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and interfere with the FIR.
Punjab & Haryana High Court:
Case Title: Sikandar Singh v. State of Punjab and another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 320
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that once the first anticipatory bail has been denied on merits and without there being change in the facts of the situation, the second application for the same relief under Section 482 BNSS cannot be entertained by making new arguments or twist by introducing new circumstances, development or material.
Justice Kirti Singh while rejecting the second anticipatory bail plea in a murder case noted that there was no change in circumstances and non-bailable warrants have already been issued against the accused.
Case Title: PXXXX v. XXXX
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued directions to Director Generals of Police for the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Union Territory of Chandigarh to issue necessary instructions for scrupulous compliance of Section 193(3) of BNSS (erstwhile Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C.) by the Investigating Officers.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Section 193(3) of BNSS is an evolved version of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., since a specific stipulation has been made therein by means of sub-clause (3)(ii), which makes the police duty-bound to inform the victim or the complainant- informant about the progress of the investigation within a period of 90 days."
Rajasthan High Court:
Case Title: Banwari Lal Kushwah v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 334
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed the bail application of an accused charged under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, on grounds of Section 480(6) BNSS, since the trial did not conclude within sixty days from the date fixed for taking evidence in the case and the accused was in custody for more than two years.
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena was hearing a second bail application filed by the accused charged under Section 420 and 406, IPC, in view of Section 480(6) of BNSS.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Bisu & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 353
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 233 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 leaves no doubt that even if complaint proceedings are already undergoing in relation to particular allegations and facts, and the police officials receive a report/compliant on the same set of facts, they are not barred from registering an FIR on those facts.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga added that the only mandatory procedure was that the Magistrate shall stay the further proceedings in the complaint case that was instituted prior to registration of the FIR, to await for the outcome of the inquiry/investigation.