- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita...
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Annual Digest 2024
Sanjana Dadmi
21 Jan 2025 6:30 AM
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 479...
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.
Case Title – Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 819
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 21) held that while the State has the discretion to impose conditions on a convict while granting permanent remission, such conditions must be reasonable.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that principles of natural justice must be followed before cancellation of remission due to breach of conditions.
Case Details : Pooja Sharma Versus Union Of India And Anr. W.P.(Crl.) No. 398/2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 834
The Supreme Court on Monday (October 14) refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions under Article 142 to include sexual offences against men, trans persons and animals under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code.
During the hearing, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the Court cannot direct the Parliament to create an offence.
BNSS Provision Capping Maximum Undertrial Term Applies To PMLA : Supreme Court Grants Bail
Case Title – Badshah Majid Malik v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 835
The Supreme Court on Friday (October 18) granted bail to Badshah Majid Malik, an alleged red sanders smuggler, in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih granted bail on the ground that he had served more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the offence as per the first proviso to Section 479(1) (Maximum Period for Detention of Undertrial Prisoners) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case Title – In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 836
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 22) expressed concern over the inadequate implementation of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which the maximum period for which undertrial prisoners can be detained.
“A cursory examination of the reports from few of the states and the union territories would indicate that the process of identification of the undertrial who are entitled to benefit under section 479 of BNSS is somewhat deficient”, the Court observed.
Bar Association Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Validity Of 4 BNSS Provisions
The Mannargudi Bar Association has approached the Supreme Court challenging 4 provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These include: Sections 43(3) [Handcuffing], 107 [attachment, forfeiture of property], 223 [non-taking of cognizance in a complaint case without opportunity of hearing to accused] and 356 [trial in absence of accused].
Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 632
In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (on August 23) held that Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure- would apply retrospectively to the undertrials across the country. It means that the provision will apply to all undertrials in cases was registered before July 1, 2024.
As per Section 479 BNSS, undertrials can be released on bail if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law. Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta called upon the superintendent of jails across the Country, where the accused persons are detained, to process their applications through the concerned courts upon the completion of the maximum period of detention.
Case Details : Dr. SN Kundra v. Union of India
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare certain Constitutional provisions as 'unconstitutional'. The petitioner also challenged S.149 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. S. 149 of BNS penalizes the act of collecting arms intended for waging war against the Government of India. Refusing to entertain the petition, the bench dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10,000/-
Case Title: Kush Kalra v. UoI And Anr.
The Supreme Court closed a petition challenging a gender discriminatory provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 taking note of the fact that the statute's replacement, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, has removed the provision.
The petition challenged Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the said section discriminated against women by treating female members of a family incapable of accepting summons on behalf of the person summoned.
High Courts:
Allahabad High Court:
Case title - Kajal And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 583
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is the investigating agency's prerogative to sponsor the witness whose statement they want to record under Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 [Recording of confessions and statements] and that an IO could not be forced to get the statement of any witness recorded under the said provision.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania made this observation while dealing with a plea filed by a couple seeking a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to record the statement of the girl (applicant no.1) under Section 183 of BNSS in connection with a case lodged against the applicant no. 2 (boy) under Sections 137(2) [Kidnapping] and 87 [Kidnapping/Abduction for Marriage] of Bharatiya Nyay Sahinta.
Case title – Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in a particular case, if the FIR is lodged on or after July 1, 2024 (the date of commencement of 3 New Criminal Laws), for an offence committed before that date, it would be registered under the provisions of the IPC. Still, the investigation will continue as per Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court also held that in a particular case, if the investigation is pending on July 1, 2024, the investigation will continue as per the CrPC; however, the cognizance of the police report will be taken as per the procedure laid down under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Title: Suraj Pal Singh v. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 501
Recently, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner sought a declaration that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and other criminal laws were violative of Article 13 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that since the old enactments had been replaced by the new criminal laws, i.e. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the petitioner can challenge them if any grievances remain.
Case title - Deepu And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
While dealing with a matter wherein an FIR (filed on July 3) in a Rape case had been registered under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Allahabad High Court last week questioned the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, over not invoking the provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Case title - Shahnaz And 6 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Agra Division Police Commissioner to file an affidavit detailing the refresher course provided to investigating officers within the Commissionerate concerning the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code on July 1, 2024).
A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi sought this affidavit while dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by 7 accused seeing to quash an FIR lodged against them in a Dowry-cruelty and rape case.
Bombay High Court:
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).
Case Title: Nirmala Bhavesh Parmar vs State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court was last month informed that the Maharashtra government has issued a circular instructing all the police officers across the State to 'scrupulously' implement the provisions of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandate the investigating officer to update the progress of the probe to the complainant, within 90 days of the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan was hearing a writ petition filed by one Nirmala Parmar seeking directions to the Mumbai Police to strictly comply with section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which mandates an investigating officer to hand over a copy of the 'action taken report' or the chargesheet, to the complainant.
In a first, the Maharashtra Government has resolved to implement a provision of the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), mandating the establishment of control rooms in police stations in every District and at State level.
As per a Government Resolution (GR) issued on August 1, the Maharashtra government has resolved to implement section 37 (a) and (b) of BNSS in letter and spirit. This means, police station across Maharashtra will have a 'control room' and will also have 'a prominent digital display' of the names of persons who are arrested, the nature of the offences committed by them, their addresses etc.
Cases Filed Before July 1, 2024, Will Be Investigated As Per CrPC And Not BNSS: Bombay High Court
Case Details: Chowgule and Company Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra
In a significant order, the Bombay High Court's Goa bench recently held that in cases lodged before July 1, 2024, the provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) will apply to the investigations and not the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Single-judge Justice Bharat Deshpande rejected the argument that since the new law has come in, the cases lodged prior to July 1, will have to be investigated as per the newly enforced BNSS.
Calcutta High Court:
Case: Research In Human Dna. It vs Unknown
The Calcutta High Court has held that capacity building in the arena of forensic science is a sine qua non for effective and proper implementation of the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which emphasizes on use of forensic science in investigation.
A division bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Biswaroop Chowdhury further elaborated on the various provisions of the BNSS which invoke the use of forensic sciences in the course of investigations, while observing that the current capacity of the existing forensic science laboratories (FSLs) was inadequate.
Chhattisgarh High Court:
Case Title: Smt. Parisha Trivedi & Anr. Versus State of Chhattisgarh
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently pointed that Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has widened the discretion conferred upon a criminal court wile deciding the anticipatory bail plea of a person apprehending arrest.
Justice Goutam Bhaduri highlighted that the legislature has deleted the "guiding factors", contained in the erstwhile CrPC, from the corresponding anticipatory bail provision in BNSS.
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.
Title: STATE THROUGH RPF v. DHARMENDRA @ DHARMA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1072
The Delhi High Court has taken a “serious view” of the reliance upon old criminal laws by advocates to file new applications or petitions, despite implementation of new laws with effect from July 01.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh directed the Registry to ensure that the new applications or pleas are filed under the new laws only.
Title: SH. ANUPAM GAHOI v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 826
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed a matrimonial case filed against a husband by his wife in 2018 while treating his plea for quashing of the FIR filed under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani analyzed Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS and said that proceedings are to be disposed of, continued, held or made in accordance with the Cr.P.C. only in cases where such proceedings were already pending immediately before July 01.
Title: PRINCE v. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 800
The Delhi High Court has observed that procedure with respect to anticipatory bail pleas filed in relation to FIRs lodged prior to enforcement of new criminal laws should be governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, if the date of filing such application is on or after July 1, 2024.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reasoned that Section 531(2)(a) BNSS prescribes that proceedings must be continued and disposed of under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) "only in cases where they were pending" immediately before July 01.
Title: Shri S. Rabban Alam v. CBI Though Its Director
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 797
Giving a “possible interpretation” of Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the Delhi High Court said that only if an appeal is pending before the new law came into force, can such an appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “As per the general, settled principle of law, an appeal is considered to be a continuation of the trial. However, the wording of section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS is amenable to a possible interpretation that if an appeal is pending before the coming into force of the BNSS, only then would such appeal be continued under the Cr.P.C.”
BNSS Heralds A 'Transformative Era' In Criminal Justice, Promotes Transparent System Aligned With Principles Of Fairness: Delhi High Court
Title: BANTU v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the British-era Code of Criminal Procedure, heralds a transformative era in the criminal justice.
“BNSS, with its comprehensive emphasis on technological integration, heralds a transformative era in criminal justice, promoting a system that is not only transparent and accountable but also fundamentally aligned with the principles of fairness and justice,” Justice Amit Mahajan observed.
Title: M/S KG MARKETING INDIA v. MS. RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has referred to Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for the first time after it came into effect on July 01, while dealing with the issue of forgery and fabrication of documents by a party in a trademark infringement dispute.
In a ruling passed on July 02, Justice Prathiba M Singh dealt with a suit wherein two newspaper advertisements relied upon by the plaintiff, KG Marketing, were forged and fabricated.
Title: GANTAVYA GULATI v. UNION OF INDIA
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Union Government to treat as representation a petition filed against the exclusion of a provision similar to Section 377 of now repealed Indian Penal Code, 1860, from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Central Government to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Gauhati High Court:
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.
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.
The Gauhati High Court on Saturday (October 5) issued guidelines for acceptance of Final Report Form (Charge sheet or Final Report) by all courts under its jurisdiction. It includes: The Police Reports Final Form (Charge sheets or Final reports) shall be accepted by all Courts without insisting for original Case Diaries. Further, While accepting the Final Police Report Form with all its enclosures, the concerned Courts shall ensure that provisions of Section 173 CrPC or 193(6) BNSS and 193(8) BNSS are strictly complied with by the investigating officer.
Himachal Pradesh High Court:
Case Title: Bhupesh Thakur Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Clarifying the limitations of Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, particularly in cases involving transgender individuals the Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that a transgender cannot invoke Section 69 of the which penalizes sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage.
While explaining the actual mandate of Sec 69 and confirming the interim bail of an accused Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “Since under BNS, “woman” and “transgender” have been given different identity and have been defined independently, under Section 2 coupled with the fact that physical relationship inter-se victim prosecutrix and bail petitioner, if any, was developed prior to surgery of victim-prosecutrix, whereby she allegedly got her sex changed, there appears to be force in the claim of the bail petitioner that he could not have been booked under Section 69 of the BNS, rather he is required to be dealt with in terms of the under Section 18 (d) of the Act”.
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: 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.
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.
Case Title: Arunkumar AND State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court has held that from July 1, 2024 onwards when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force, the police registering an FIR under the repealed Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan, sitting at Kalaburagi bench, allowed the petition filed by Arunkumar and quashed the FIR registered against him under Section 376, 323, 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on July 1.
Case Title: Vishal Khatwani AND State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High court has issued model guidelines to be followed by the trial courts while dealing with release of the seized properties either under Section 451 and 457 Cr.P.C., or under Section 497 of BNSS, till the State Government issues directions in this regard.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda in its order said, “State Government is required to frame necessary rules which would be in consonance with the power of the Court for disposal of all the seized properties including the electronic devices, digital devices, seized medical samples, food items, adulterated petroleum products which are highly inflammable in nature, perishable objects, precious metals like gold and silver etc.”
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND Shivananda S Patil
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
Clarifying the procedure to be followed by magisterial courts on issuance of notice on complaints under Section 223 BNSS, the Karnataka High Court Friday underlined that the opportunity of hearing to be provided to the accused in the provision is not an empty formality, without which cognizance cannot be taken.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while hearing a petition filed by BJP leader and MLA Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) who had approached the court questioning the notice issued to him by the magisterial court on the defamation complaint filed by Shivananda S Patil. The petitioner had claimed that the notice issued to him did not follow the procedure as per law.
Case Title: Geetha Urs v. State of Karnataka
The Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the State government to sensitise all the jurisdictional police stations to henceforth register crimes only under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and not under the now repealed Indian Penal Code.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna gave the direction while hearing a petition questioning the registration of a crime registered on July 1 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka Case No: WRIT PETITION No.15125 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
The Karnataka High Court has said that in the event a notice issued by the police summoning a citizen under Section 35 of the BNSS does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or the appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken against him.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “Summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned.”
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Behra AND State of Karnataka
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 338
The Karnataka High Court has urged the Central Government to amend Section 184 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to provide that adult victims of rape be examined in hospitals by only female doctors, so as to protect their right to privacy.
A single judge bench of Justice MG Uma directed the Central and State governments to ensure that till the amendment is brought, medical examination of rape victims is conducted only by or under the supervision of a female registered medical practitioner.
Kerala High Court:
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.
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.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
The Kerala High Court has stated that neither the CrPC nor the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) gives exception from DNA profiling on the ground that the accused and victims are siblings.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the criminal miscellaneous cases filed by the accused and the victim challenging the seizure of blood samples collected for DNA profiling.
Case Title: Dr Jacob Mani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
The Kerala High Court stated that a victim under the proviso to Section 413 of BNSS is a person who suffered damages or loss as a direct consequence of the crime.
Justice C Jayachandran quashed the appeal preferred by the appellant who claims to be a victim. The Court observed that the loss or damage claimed to have been suffered is too remote a cause while considering the allegations made by the appellant.
The Kerala High Court has directed the Special Investigating Team (SIT), constituted by the Government to inquire into the allegations made in the Justice Hema Committee Report, to take necessary action as per Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Section 173 of the BNSS deals with the registration of FIR when information is received regarding the commission of a cognizable offence.
Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. Justice A. Badharudeen further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that protection afforded to an accused of unsound mind or with intellectual disability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and will thus apply retrospectively, to pending applications.
Justice K Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings prior to July 01, 2024, to ensure fair trial for persons with intellectual disability or mental disability.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that a person accused in a criminal case but incapable of making defence due to Alzheimer's Dementia is entitled to protection under the CrPC and The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice K Babu noted that dementia is a form of mental disability which include problems with language, memory loss, etc. and thus an affected person may be prevented from defending his case.
A lawyer has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 69 of Bhaaratiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, like false promise to marry.
The petitioner has challenged the provision on the grounds that it violates the right of equality, right to expression and right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
Case No: Crl.A. No. 1186 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court has laid down the following principles to determine whether the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C) or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is applicable when an appeal is filed.
An appeal filed on or after 01.07.2024 shall be governed by BNSS
Irrespective of whether the conviction was given on or before 01.07.2024 or if the appeal is filed on or after 01.07.2024, BNSS is to be followed
All applications filed and steps taken in appeals prior to 01.07.2024 shall be governed by Cr. P.C
When an appeal/ application is re-presented after curing defects, its date of filing shall be the date of its first presentation.
Case Title: Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner who was arrayed as 1st accused for allegedly committing an offence of organized crime under Section 111(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 111 (1) of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing criminal activity committed by a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Section 111 (1)(i) defines 'organized crime syndicate' and Section 111 (1) (ii) defines 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Justice C S Dias observed that prime facie an offence under Section 111 (1) is not attracted against the petitioner since no charge sheet has been filed against him in any Court in the 'preceding period of last ten years' to satisfy the mandate of 'continuing unlawful activity' as defined under Section 111(1) (ii).
Case Title: Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband for offence under Section 377 IPC. The Court observed that after the definition of rape in Section 375 was amended in 2013, forcible acts of oral sex committed by a male accused on a female victim is an offence of rape. However, since a wife can't prosecute her husband for offence of rape, neither section 377 not section 375 will stand against the accused.
The Court also noted that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not have an offence equivalent to Section 377 IPC. The rationale for this omission, the bench said, is not stated in the statute.
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.
Case Title: Mr.Muthuvelaydha Perumal Appavu @ M.Appavu v RM Babu Murugavel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
While quashing a defamation complaint filed against Tamil Nadu speaker M Appavu, the Madras High Court observed that the complaint registered after 1st July 2024, under the provisions of IPC, for an offence committed before 1st July was maintainable.
Justice G Jayachandran observed that if the saving clause under Section 531 of BNSS is restricted only to matters pending on or before July 1st 2024, it will be contrary to the savings of right sand privileges acquired and ensured protection under Section 358 of the BNS and Section 4 of the General Clauses Act.
Case Title: Jacob v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of an octogenarian with Parkinsons disease by directing Special Court for CBI cases to frame charges in a case against him through video conferencing, as per Section 355 of the BNSS.
Justice N Seshasayee observed that merely because a person was facing criminal accusations, it would not imply that he should surrender all his comforts and convenience to participate in the trial proceedings. The court added that as per Explanation to Section 355 of BNSS, personal attendance of the accused also included his attendance through audio-video electronic means. The court noted that the explanation showed the need to incorporate and integrate technology into the procedure and it was appropriate for the courts to resort to the same.
Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court has emphasised that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women.
“Offences like harassment to woman under the Special Act or sexual offences, criminal force and assault against woman or offences related to marriage were the victim is the woman will fall under gender centric/gender neutral offences. Unlike I.P.C fortunately, the Bharathiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) has brought all these offences under one chapter and grouped in Chapter V of BNS under the caption “of offences against woman and child.” In the considered view of this Court, only those offences will fall under gender centric or gender neutral offences to attract the expression “offence against a woman” and be excluded from the scope of plea bargaining,” the court observed.
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."
Title: Suraj Singh @ Noni v. State of Punjab
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 279
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that State cannot arrest a person for "organised crime" under Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) without having any prima facie admissible evidence against him.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "Without legally admissible accusations, allegations, or evidence, the State cannot arrest a suspect to fish evidence against them or use such a suspect as custodial bait by any hook, line, and sinker to bring the case into the fold of S. 111 of BNS. Prima facie evidence must be admissible, and if such evidence is deemed inadmissible, the entire foundation will collapse."
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the registry not to list the criminal appeals till the Punjab Government notifies the list of Public Prosecutors in terms of Section 18 of the BNSS, 2023.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth said, "From the perusal of the concerned provisions of the Act (Section 18 BNSS), it is apparent that in the absence of notification and nomination in terms of the aforesaid Section, no counsel can appear and argue criminal cases especially appeals which are in continuation of trial. The criminal appeals would therefore be adjourned till counsel are duly notified in terms of Section 18 of the BNSS Act, 2023."
Case title: AXXXXX v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 256
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a High Court under Section 528 BNSS can entertain a plea for registering an FIR and monitoring an investigation by forming a Special Investigating Team (SIT) but the complainant should show a sufficient reason for not approaching the Ilaqa Magistrate first
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "In a given case, if the facts/circumstances so warrant, the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to entertain and consider plea(s) seeking registration of an FIR, monitoring of investigation in an FIR, constituting an SIT (Special Investigating Team), change of investigating officer & all such prayer(s) of such kind and nature. However, it would be prudent that an applicant/complainant, while seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 in the first instance seeking prayer(s) of above nature, shows sufficient cause for not having approached the Illaqa/Jurisdictional Magistrate in the first instance."
Title: RXXXX v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 247
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has referred the issue of applicability of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to a larger bench.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar disagreed with the opinion in Axxx v. UT Chandigarh where Justice Sumeet Goel had held that if a FIR is lodged under IPC but the application or petition in relation to it is filed after July 01, then provisions of BNSS will be applicable.
Title: XXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 242
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that for a successive anticipatory bail petition to succeed under the BNSS, the petitioner is required to show substantial change in circumstances and "a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice."
Justice Sumeet Goel clarified that, "No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances, as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Accordingly, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive anticipatory bail petition(s)."
Title: Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh and another v. State of Punjab
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 241
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed the arrest of an accused who had filed anticipatory bail plea under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) instead of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "unintentionally choosing a wrong legal remedy should not become a technical hindrance for exercising Constitutional and statutory rights in pursuit of Justice. Given this, the appropriate relief under these compelling circumstances is limited protection and relief to exercise the correct option."
Title: XXX v. XXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 230
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that bar on grant of anticipatory bail plea under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in certain cases of rape involving minors is not absolute.
Justice Sumeet Goel said, "a plea for grant of anticipatory bail/pre-arrest bail; under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 376(3)/376AB/376DA/376DB of IPC & under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for offences under Section 65(2)/70(2) of BNS, 2023; is maintainable."
Title: Suraj Singh @ Noni v. State of Punjab
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 279
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that State cannot arrest a person for "organised crime" under Section 111 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) without having any prima facie admissible evidence against him.
Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "Without legally admissible accusations, allegations, or evidence, the State cannot arrest a suspect to fish evidence against them or use such a suspect as custodial bait by any hook, line, and sinker to bring the case into the fold of S. 111 of BNS. Prima facie evidence must be admissible, and if such evidence is deemed inadmissible, the entire foundation will collapse."
Case Title: XXX v. XXXX
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 252
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that if a FIR is lodged under IPC but the application or petition in relation to it is filed after July 01, then provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which has replaced Criminal Procedure Code, will be applicable.
The Court dismissed the petition filed on July 04 under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR lodged under provisions of IPC, with the liberty to file an appropriate petition invoking the provisions of BNSS.
Title: XXXX v. XXX [CRR(F)-643-2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 213
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Court can grant "ex-parte ad-interim maintenance" under Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Sumeet Goel clarified that "The Court ought to consider a plea, for grant of ex-parte ad-interim maintenance/ad-interim maintenance, in accordance with the well-established norms of judicial discretion and justice. No universal exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid-down for the exercise of such power & the same shall be exercised by the Court in the facts/circumstances of a given case."
Title: Rohit Mehta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the High Court's executive committee order restricting uploading of orders, judgments or case details of sensitive matters like cases relating crime against woman, Juvenile Justice Act, matrimonial disputes on the High Court websites, including the e-court platform.
The PIL also challenges Section 73 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 366(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which prohibits publication of proceedings relating to cases involving sexual offences pending in trial court, without court's permission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Title: Ashraj Stone Private Limited v Karav International
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that in cases where the complainant is a 'victim' of crime, as defined under Section 2(y) of BNSS, s/he is not required to prefer an application before the High Court seeking leave to appeal against acquittal, as is provided under Section 419(4) of BNSS.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar clarified that a leave to appeal was required by the complainant, as mentioned under Section 419(4), in cases where the complainant was not the victim. Since criminal proceedings could be set in motion by anyone having knowledge of commission of any cognizable offences, if a complaint was filed by a person who was not a victim, then such person would need a leave of appeal under this provision.
Title: Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Rajasthan High Court has clarified that in light of proviso to Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), where the police has already filed the report following investigation against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the trial court.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a quashing petition against FIR filed for cheating and criminal breach of trust in which four charge sheets were already filed and no role was attributed to the petitioner, neither his name was arrayed anywhere as an accused. The Court found that no culpability of commission of any offence was attributable to the petitioner and disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Vijay Sharma & Others Vs State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that for a crime committed before July 1, 2024—the date when three new criminal laws came into effect—if an FIR is filed on or after July 1, the provisions/offences of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will have to be invoked, and in such cases, the offences outlined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) will not apply.
A bench of Justice Arun Monga , however, clarified that for such FIRs lodged after July 1, 2024, for offences under the IPC (as crime committed before July 1), the applicable procedure should be as prescribed in the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and not the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Title: Mala Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court recently allowed a murder accused's plea under Section 94 BNSS by treating it as one filed under Section 95 BNSS, thereby expanding the provision's (Section 95) scope in the peculiar facts of the case and directed the trial court to obtain the call and location details of the witnesses in the case.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed that Section 94 of BNSS can be invoked only either at the instance of the court or the officer in-charge of the police station, who in a given situation, may consider any document to be produced for the benefit of the Court.
Title: Vikram Manshani v Praveen Sharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
The Rajasthan High Court held that no special leave is required to file an appeal under Section 413 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), against an acquittal order wherein the complainant in the case is the victim himself.
The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 413 of BNSS corresponded to Section 372, CrPC where the proviso laid down the right of a victim to appeal against an order of acquittal, or an order convicting the accused for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation.
Title: Krishna Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 155
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that where an FIR was registered under Section 154 of CrPC prior to July 1, 2023, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within Section 531(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”). Hence, the entire subsequent investigation procedure and even the trial procedure in relation to that FIR shall be governed by CrPC and not BNSS.
“We are concerned here only with the savings clause contained in sub section 531(2)(a). A perusal thereof clearly reflect that, not only the pending trial / appeal, but even an inquiry and/or investigation, which is underway prior to coming into force of the BNSS, shall have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 and not under the BNSS, 2023.”