Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Monthly Digest – February 2025

S.156(3) CrPC v S.175(3) BNSS | BNSS Mandates Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR, Ensures Reasoned Order: Supreme Court

Case Title: OM PRAKASH AMBADKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139

The Supreme Court recently criticized the routine use of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order police investigations, even in simple cases where the court could proceed directly to trial, stressing that magistrates should act judicially, not mechanically as a mere post office.

The Court also highlighted the changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Section 175 (corresponding to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C.), noting that Section 174(4) of BNSS is a new addition providing additional safeguards for public servants before an FIR can be registered against them. These safeguards include requiring a report from their superior officer detailing the facts and circumstances of the incident and considering the accused public servant's account of the situation that led to the alleged incident.

BNSS Allows Supply Of Chargesheet & Case Documents To Victims Free Of Cost : Supreme Court Disposes Of Plea

Case Title: Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India

The Supreme Court today disposed of a petition seeking directions to authorities for free supply of chargesheets to complainants/victims and issuance of notice to them at pre-trial stage.

It observed that while the first issue stood resolved in terms of Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), on the second issue, the Court, under writ jurisdiction, could not direct the legislature to enact law in a particular manner.

S.437(6) CrPC/S.480(6) BNSS | Be Liberal While Deciding Bail When Magistrate Trial Hasn't Concluded In 60 Days : Supreme Court

Case Name: Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 223

The Supreme Court yesterday (on February 18), observed that courts should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with applications under Section 437(6) of CrPC in cases where there is no chance of evidence tampering, absconding, or accused delaying the trial.

For context, Section 437(6) of CrPC, provides that bail ought to be generally granted where the trial in a case triable by the Magistrate is not concluded within a period of 60 days after the first date fixed for the prosecution evidence, unless the Magistrate, for reasons recorded, decides otherwise. The counter-part of Section 437(6) in the BNSS is Section 480(6).

BNSS/CrPC Provisions On Rights Of Arrested Persons Applicable To GST & Customs Acts : Supreme Court

Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 255

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.

High Courts:

Allahabad High Court:

Allahabad High Court Seeks Report Over Alleged House Arrest Of An Advocate Under 'Oral Directions' Of District Judge

Case title - Mahatab Singh vs. State Of UP And 3 Others

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday raised concerns over the alleged detention of a 70-year-old advocate from Agra, who was purportedly placed under house arrest by police personnel in November 2024 on the 'oral' directions of the District and Sessions Judge.

The petitioner (Advocate Mahtab Singh) claimed he was detained in his house for 2 hours after serving Section 168 BNSS (Police to prevent cognizable offences) notice so as to prevent him from meeting the Administrative (High Court) Judge until he was present in the Judgeship. In its order, the Court remarked that it failed to understand the need and occasion for the police personnel to serve the notice under Section 168 BNSS upon the petitioner on account of the Administrative Judge's visit.

Kerala High Court:

S.187(3) BNSS | Default Bail Can Be Granted After 60 Days For Offence Punishable With Imprisonment Which May Extend To 10 Yrs: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

The Kerala High Court has granted default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS to an accused in a drugs case, booked under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years (maximum ten years punishment), after 60 days in custody.

Not Mandatory To Obtain Sanction To Prosecute Public Servant For Failing To Report POCSO Offences, S. 19 Contains Non-Obstante Clause: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

The Kerala High Court has held that it is not mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 197 of CrPC or Section 218 of the BNSS to prosecute a public servant under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report POCSO Offences. The Court made this ruling on noting that Section 19 which mandates reporting of POCSO offences begins with a non-obstante clause, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973' and thus it excludes the applicability of Section 42A of the Act.

Reference To IPC Provisions In Definition Of 'Rowdy' Under Anti-Social Activities Law Is A Reference To Relevant BNS Provisions: Kerala HC

While examining the definition of 'rowdy' under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA), the Kerala High Court observed that the reference to the repealed IPC provisions in the definition, has to be construed as a reference to relevant provision in the BNS. It held that when such reference is to a chapter of IPC, the corresponding chapter of BNS shall be referred to and it would include even new offences in the chapter.

Madras High Court:

Provisions Against Arrest Of Women At Night Are Directory, Not Mandatory: Madras HC Sets Aside Departmental Proceedings Against Police Officers

Case Title: Deepa v. S Vijayalakshmi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 50

The Madras High Court recently observed that Section 46(4) of CrPC and Section 43(5) of the BNSS Act which prevents the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise is directory and not mandatory.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice M Jothiraman explained that the provisions did not provide the consequences of non-compliance of the requirement. The court observed that if the legislature intended the provision to be mandatory, it would have set out the consequences for non-compliance. 

Orissa High Court:

S. 175(3) BNSS | Mandatory For Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR Before Passing Order For Investigation: Orissa HC

Case Title: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19

The Orissa High Court has held that before passing order for investigation, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the police officer upon his refusal to register First Information Report (FIR), apart from considering the application supported by an affidavit made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police and making proper inquiry.

Clarifying the position of law under the new criminal law regime, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy said – “…it is mandatory for the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned Police Officer, so as to apply his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submission of the police officer, thereby ensuring the requirement of passing reason orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.”

S.175(4) BNSS | Magistrate Can Order Probe Against Public Servant Only After Hearing Him & Receiving Report From Superior Officer: Orissa HC

Case Title: Prajna Prakash Nayak v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 25

The Orissa High Court has held that a Magistrate can order investigation against a public servant only after complying with the requirements provided under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), i.e. upon receiving report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him and after considering the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.

Punjab & Haryana High Court:

'For Uniformity & Coherence': P&H HC Issues Guidelines For Magistrates To Consider Cancellation Reports, Application To Lodge FIR Under BNSS

Title: Pawan Kharbanda v. State of Punjab and another

The Punjab & Haryana High Court issued a slew of guidelines to magistrates on consideration of cancellation reports and applications to lodge FIRs under section 156(3) of CrPC. (Section 175(3) of BNSS), observing the variations in the manner, in which Magistrates are dealing it.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "As a watchful guardian of the rights of the citizens, the Courts bears the responsibility of ensuring that these provisions are not misused to harass individuals or to subvert the due process of law. The provisions under Sections 156 and 173 of Cr.P.C. (now Sections 175 & 193 of BNSS) are powerful legal instruments, meant to uphold justice, however, their indiscriminate use can lead to unnecessary hardships. Judicial oversight is, therefore, imperative in order to prevent abuse while ensuring that legitimate grievances receive the attention they deserve."

Magisterial Inquiry Before Ordering FIR An Additional Safeguard U/Section 175(3) BNSS, Prevents Unnecessary Police Use: Punjab & Haryana HC

Title: Pawan Kharbanda v. State of Punjab and another

The Punjab & Haryana has observed that Section 175(3) of BNSS has introduced additional safeguards ensuring that before directing the registration of an FIR, the Magistrate is required to conduct such inquiry as deemed necessary and consider the submissions made by the police officer.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "Furthermore, Section 175(3) of BNSS has introduced additional safeguards ensuring that before directing the registration of an FIR, the Magistrate is required to conduct such inquiry as deemed necessary and consider the submissions made by the police officer. The power to conduct an inquiry under this provision (Section 175(3) of BNSS) must be exercised liberally and the Magistrate shall mandatorily seek the submissions of the Investigating Agency. This procedural safeguard ensures that the Magistrate arrives at a reasoned and well-considered decision, preventing unnecessary invocation of investigative machinery as well as expenditure of public resources and ensuring that the resort to police intervention is warranted in the given circumstances."

Record In Warrant Cases | Non-Signing Of Witness's Deposition By Magistrate Will Be Fatal To Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

Title: Rajender Singh v. State Of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 82

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that non- signing of the deposition of the witnesses, by a Magistrate in a warrant case under Section 275 CrPC ( Section 310 BNSS) would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.