Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Also known as BNSS.
Explained in Our Guides
Sections
Key Judgments
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act against two men accused of shouting loudly at each other on a public street under the influence of alcohol, finding no allegation of any element of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness and no cognizable offence (paras 3-6). For the nuisance their shouting caused, it ordered them to pay Rs. 10,000 costs to a charity (para 9).
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to a man found with 180 grams of mephedrone during a 10 pm search of a house without a warrant. The SHO had recorded the information and his grounds for not getting a warrant before the search and sent them to his superior, which was prima facie compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (paras 12-15). As commercial quantity was involved, the Section 37 bar applied (para 17).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an FIR against a man accused of appearing before trial courts as an advocate without enrolment, holding that no one may practise or represent himself as an advocate unless enrolled with the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 (para 5). It refused his counsel's mid-hearing request to withdraw the petition and dismissed it with costs of Rs 50,000 (paras 2, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash a forgery and cheating FIR against a man claiming a company's land under an agreement to sell, though civil suits by both sides were pending. The agreement was neither admitted nor shown to have been paid for, and the police had prima facie found it forged, so the dispute could not be called purely civil (paras 11, 16-17).
Noting that calling for case diaries routinely delays bail hearings by 15-20 days, Justice Ravi Chirania of the Rajasthan High Court directed the office of the Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General to call for a factual report on the FIR as soon as a bail application is filed, preferably within 3-7 days (paras 2, 7). Bail pleas in petty and other offences are then to be decided on that report unless the Court needs the case diary (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a dumper seized by the police cannot be released merely because the Motor Vehicles Act case against its driver has ended, as confiscation proceedings by the Mining Department are separate (para 9). Following its judgment in Phusaram v. State of Rajasthan, it left the owner free to apply afresh to the Magistrate under Section 503 BNSS, who must first call for the Mining Department's report (paras 7, 12).
Deciding 105 writ petitions, the Rajasthan High Court held that in cyber fraud investigations the ordinary course is to place a lien on the identifiable disputed amount, not to freeze the whole bank account. It laid down binding principles for the State, required compliance with Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS and the MHA SOP of 02.01.2026, and directed the DGP and the RBI to issue circulars (paras 31, 45, 48, 53).
The Bombay High Court granted bail to a woman accused of bringing 13.324 kg of hydroponic ganja from Bangkok through Mumbai airport, because the chemical analysis (C.A.) report had still not been filed before the trial court after the charge-sheet (paras 4, 7, 9). Following Bablu Singh and Ashish Prakash Walke, it allowed the application, but drew on the Rajasthan High Court's Kuldeep Singh order on economic offences to impose stringent conditions (paras 7-9).
The Karnataka High Court refused regular bail to three men intercepted at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport on arrival from Bangkok, with 36.430 kg of alleged hydroponic ganja recovered from their baggage (paras 1, 3, 14). Although hydroponic ganja is punished under the ganja entry, the Court held that its higher THC and value make the harm to society greater, so possession of an intermediate quantity is not by itself a ground for bail (paras 10, 13).
The Rajasthan High Court discharged the registered owner of a motorcycle who had been charged under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act after two riders were caught with 500 grams of ganja. Section 25 reaches only an owner who "knowingly permits" the vehicle to be used for an offence, and knowledge cannot be presumed from ownership (paras 8-9, 16). The Section 35 presumption of a culpable mental state arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts (paras 11, 14).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS to a man accused by the Narcotics Control Bureau of recruiting couriers for an international cartel bringing hydroponic ganja from Thailand, after 1.064 kg was seized from a co-accused at Amritsar airport (paras 1-2, 9). Although he was not caught with any drug, it held that a Section 29 conspiracy needs no physical possession and that custodial interrogation was needed to trace the source of supply (paras 6, 9).
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to a passenger held by the DRI over 2.060 kg of suspected hydroponic weed/cannabis, holding that his custody began at the airport interception at about 23:45 on 12.04.2026, not at the formal arrest at 17:00 the next day (paras 4, 9, 13). Daytime production on 14.04.2026 breached Article 22(2), and bail followed on that ground alone (paras 13-14).