Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) & Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest: December 2024

Advocate Casting Aspersions On Woman's Character Upon Instructions From Client Is Discharging His Duty, Not Insulting Her Modesty: Bombay HC

Case Title: Ratnadeep Ram Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 634

The Bombay High Court recently held that an advocate, when casts aspersions upon a woman's character, on instructions from his client, is basically discharging his duty and thus cannot be booked for insulting the modesty of the woman punishable under section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Gauhati High Court:

Gauhati High Court Asks Assam DGP To Direct Police Stations Not To File 'Hit And Run' Case U/S 106(2) BNS As Provision Not In Force Yet

Case Title: Ritumani Deka v. The Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 96

The Gauhati High Court recently asked Assam's Director General of Police to issue necessary direction to the police stations under his jurisdiction, not to register any case under Section 106 (2) of the BNS–pertaining to death by rash driving which is not culpable homicide–which has not come into force till date.

Karnataka High Court:

S.187 BNSS | Police Custody Must Be Within First Forty Days For Offences Punishable Upto 10 Years Imprisonment : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518

The Karnataka High Court has held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment

It clarified that the phraseology used in Section 187 BNSS is an offence punishable "for ten years or more", explaining that 10 years or more would mean that the threshold punishment is 10 years and not a punishment up to 10 years. The court said that if the punishment term is between 1-10 years then Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years must be completed in 60 days.

Kerala High Court:

'Zero FIR' Has Been Introduced U/S 173 BNSS To Ensure Victims Can File Complaints Regardless Of Jurisdiction: Kerala HC

Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v The State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784

Elaborating on Zero FIR, the Kerala High Court said that the provision has been introduced in the BNSS to primarily ensure that victims can file complaints regardless of jurisdiction.

Justice Kauser Edappagath said that under Section 173 BNSS police cannot refuse to register an FIR merely because a part of the offence has happened outside the limit of the local jurisdictional police station.

Rajasthan High Court:

Collecting Voice Samples Against Wish Of Accused Not Violative Of Right To Privacy, Right Against Self-Incrimination: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Badri Prasad v Central Bureau of Investigation and other connected petition

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 379

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India only states that accused could not be compelled to be a witness against himself and not that the accused could not be compelled to be a witness at all.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain further observed that under Section 349 of BNSS, the Legislature had explicitly empowered the Class-I Magistrate to direct individuals, including the accused to furnish voice samples for investigation.

S.175 BNSS | Magistrate Can't Order Registration Of FIR Like 'Rubber Stamp' Especially In Complaints Arising From Family Disputes: Rajasthan HC

Title: Gordhan Lal Soni & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 399

The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR filed by the police on directions from the CJM based on a complaint under Section 175(3), BNSS, calling it a “rubber-stamp decision making” and observing complete judicial oversight on part of the CJM. It was opined that no judicial mind was applied for making an independent determination regarding prima facie existence of the case against the accused.

[S.152 BNS] Sedition Law Is A Shield For National Security, Not A Sword Against Political Dissent: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 413

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Section 152, BNS had its roots in Section 124A of the IPC and was similarly worded to the offence of sedition. The Court ruled that the provision should not be used to cripple legitimate dissent and that only deliberate actions with malicious intent fell under its ambit.