Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Supreme Court held that a person arrested for any offence under any statute, including the IPC (now BNS), must be told the grounds of arrest in writing, in a language they understand (paras 46, 56). Where written grounds are impractical at the moment of arrest, they may first be conveyed orally, but must be supplied in writing "at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate" (para 56). Non-compliance renders the arrest and remand illegal (para 56).

The Supreme Court held that an investigating officer cannot summon an Advocate representing an accused to learn the details of the case unless a Section 132 BSA exception applies. Such a summons must state the facts relied on, carry the written approval of an officer not below Superintendent of Police and is open to challenge under Section 528 BNSS. The Court declined to frame wider guidelines (paras 49-50, 67).

The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to an engineering student from whose hostel room 0.31 gram of LSD on blotter papers and 6.1 gram of ganja were allegedly recovered. Taking into account that the quantity as alleged was commercial, the Section 37 NDPS bar, and a Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling that the blotter paper is part of the LSD and counts towards its weight, the Court dismissed the application without commenting on the merits (paras 3, 5-6).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man held since March 2024 on charges under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, because the prosecution had examined only 4 of its 18 witnesses in pre-charge evidence and had still not filed the forensic report on his mobile phone (paras 6, 11). An undertrial cannot be confined indefinitely when the prosecution is not diligent, and the gravity of the charge alone cannot justify prolonged incarceration, the Court held (para 11).

The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal Rules, 2022 do not take away the Special Court's power to release a seized vehicle on interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC (Sections 497 and 503 BNSS). A lorry owner whose crew carried 6 kg of ganja, and who was never charged, got his vehicle back on supurdagi (paras 13-36).

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur refused bail to an accused held by Customs at Jaipur International Airport with 18.534 kg of what the Court treated as hydroponic weed, put by the prosecution at about ₹18 crore, although the quantity was below the commercial threshold (paras 1-3, 5-6). The Court held that the drug's potency, its high value, the sophisticated import method and possible syndicate links outweighed the usual practice of granting bail for intermediate quantities once investigation is over (para 5).

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS to an accused booked under Sections 8/20, 8/21, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, from whom 6.91 grams of cocaine and 4.9 grams of hybrid foreign ganja were allegedly recovered (paras 1, 7). Following Akhlak @ Vilsan, it held that recoveries effected separately from three accused cannot be combined into commercial quantity, so Section 37 did not apply, contrary to the trial court's view (para 8).

The Supreme Court restored a cheque-bounce conviction set aside by the Bombay High Court in revision, holding that once a cheque's execution is admitted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise, and that a cash loan above Rs. 20,000 in breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains enforceable. It issued directions on dasti and electronic summons, online payment, a case synopsis and dashboards, and revised the compounding costs (paras 15, 20, 36, 38).

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to seven accused, including a film actor, in a 2024 murder case (paras 2, 26). It distinguished annulment of a perverse bail order from cancellation for post-bail misconduct (para 18) and held that "An unsustainable bail order does not become valid with the mere passage of time or the subsequent behaviour of the accused" (para 20).

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a woman accused under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, from whom 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity, was allegedly recovered (paras 1, 14, 25). Despite the State's reliance on the total recovered from all the accused, the Court held that heroin recovered separately cannot be collectively attributed to her (para 25). Custody since 26.04.2024, a filed charge-sheet and co-accused on bail weighed for bail (paras 24-26).

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 10-year NDPS sentence in a 282 kg poppy husk case, holding that nothing linked the appellant to the vehicle or the contraband. A custodial statement by a person held in another case, which led to no fresh discovery, was barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a police statement the witness did not repeat on oath was not evidence (paras 6.1-6.5, 7-8).

The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of illicit opium poppy cultivation, holding that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply because cultivation under Section 18(c) has no quantity threshold. The case rested only on her minor son's uncorroborated statement in custody, the land stood in another person's name, and she was covered by the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC (paras 6, 9-13, 22).