Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Supreme Court quashed a Ghaziabad police notice asking X to hand over a journalist's account data, including IP logs, location, device and IMEI details, for 01.06.2026 to 22.08.2026, a period largely before the alleged road-rage offence. No personal data can be taken for the period before the offence, and later data only with privacy safeguards and proportionality. His arrest remains stayed until further orders (paras 11-13).

The Supreme Court granted bail to a man charge-sheeted for allegedly aiding a murder outside a hotel in Una by restraining the victim. Having viewed the CCTV footage, the Court found it inconclusive both on his plea that he shielded the victim and on his alleged role; with over ten months in custody and 49 witnesses to be examined, bail was the rule and jail the exception (paras 5-10).

The Karnataka High Court has refused regular bail to a man accused of bringing hydroponic ganja into Bengaluru from Bangkok, with 16.360 kg of a 26.230 kg seizure from three passengers attributed to him (paras 3, 6). Applying its order of 17.08.2026 in Crl.P No. 9787/2026, the Court held that the higher THC content, value and social harm of hydroponic ganja must weigh with courts, and that an intermediate quantity is not by itself a ground for bail (paras 6-7).

The Rajasthan High Court held that a petition under Section 528 BNSS filed directly against a judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable, because a statutory appeal lies against that judgment (paras 2, 6). It distinguished Rekha Sharad Ushir, where a cognizance order had been set aside, since a full trial had taken place here (paras 4-5), and left all objections to the appeal (para 7).

The Rajasthan High Court held that the mere existence of other criminal cases against an accused is not, by itself, a conclusive ground to deny bail; antecedents must be weighed with the other relevant factors (paras 5-7). Noting acquittals in half of 52 cases, custody of over eleven months with the prosecution evidence not yet begun, and a seven-year maximum sentence, it granted bail in an Arms Act and Explosives Act case on stringent conditions (paras 7, 10-13).

The Supreme Court altered a conviction for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery (Section 394 IPC) to grievous hurt (Section 325), because the robbery rested only on the complainant's word, with no recovery or proof of the jewellery. Identification was upheld despite no test identification parade. Applying the cognate-offence rule in Section 222 CrPC, the Court cut the sentence to the time already served and ordered the appellant's release (paras 7-15).

The Supreme Court set aside a Gauhati High Court order that had directed registration of an FIR against the appellant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, reversing a trial court's refusal. The High Court neither found fault with the trial court's reasoning nor gave cogent reasons of its own, and the Supreme Court held the order could not be sustained on that score alone, without going into the merits (paras 3-5).

Hearing a wife's petition to transfer her husband's divorce case from Jamui, Bihar to Ranchi, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the couple to mediation and, on their settlement, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 read with Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband paid Rs 33 lakh, and the dowry FIR, domestic violence, maintenance and other cases were quashed or withdrawn (paras 1-10).

The Rajasthan High Court held that once the Anti Corruption Bureau's verification found a bribery complaint true and a trap was planned, the ACB had to register an FIR and investigate; it could not close the matter on a preliminary enquiry (paras 9, 11). It quashed the enquiry findings and the recommendation to prosecute the complainant, directed an FIR and a fair ACB investigation, and declined to transfer the case to the CBI (paras 12-13).

In its missing-persons and trafficking case, the Supreme Court called it 'absolutely unacceptable' that many police stations are not digitally connected and gave States one last chance: within one month every police station must be connected and every FIR uploaded to CCTNS. It issued contempt notice to Chief Secretaries who failed to appear, criticised Gurugram police over an unidentified body cremated without its details being uploaded, and ordered an SOP for unidentified dead persons (paras 2-5, 19, 23, 28).

On a State appeal against sentence, the Rajasthan High Court held that Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act bars only death and life imprisonment without the possibility of release for a child in conflict with law, so life imprisonment with the possibility of release remains available. The Children's Court had imposed ten years' rigorous imprisonment for murder without giving any reason, so the sentence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh sentencing (paras 6-7).

The Rajasthan High Court refused a complainant's plea to cancel anticipatory bail granted by a Sessions Judge in a cheating and forgery case, holding that a bail-cancellation plea is not an appeal over the bail order. The Sessions Judge had weighed the fifteen-year delay in lodging the FIR, rulings of other forums in the accused's favour and his antecedents (paras 6-7.1, 9-14).