Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.Arun
Gokul Sudarsanan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
How to interpret the second proviso to Section 232 BNSS in relation to committal courts considering interlocutory applications? What is the effect of the second proviso to Section 232 BNSS on forwarding pending applications to the Court of Session with committal? What is the authority of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II to entertain and pass orders on applications filed before committal in a case triable by the Session Court?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. comparison between section 232 of bnss and section 209 of cr.p.c. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. proviso must be interpreted to maintain magistrate's powers. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final determination on magistrate's authority to decide applications. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
V.G.Arun, J.
The short yet interesting question arising for consideration is whether the 2nd proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNSS ) prohibits the committal court from considering interlocutory applications filed before it. The facts, in brief, are as under;
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1806 of 2024 registered at the Punalur Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.21 of 2025 before the JFCM-II, Punalur. His application for renewal of passport is not being considered by the learned Magistrate in view ofSection 232 of BNSS .
2. Heard, Adv.Nidhin Raj Vettikkadan for the petitioner, Adv.Ajith Murali, the Public Prosecutor, Adv.O.M.Shalina, the DSGI and Dr.B. Kalam Pasha, who, on request, assisted the court.
3. In order to answer the question involved, it is essential to understand the difference between Section 232 of BNSS and Section 209 of Cr.P.C, the corresponding provision in the
The second proviso to Section 232 of the BNSS does not prevent committal courts from considering pending applications prior to committal.
The court held that a committal court retains authority to consider bail applications despite statutory provisions, affirming the importance of personal liberty in bail considerations.
The court established that a magistrate must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard before taking cognizance of criminal complaints, ensuring adherence to procedural justice under Section....
The omission to specify the exact offence in a committal order is not fatal if the evidence clearly supports the need for a Sessions trial.
The court established that a right to hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita applies, requiring courts to afford such hearing before taking cognizance of offences against the accused.
The court established that pending matters under the CrPC, 1973, are preserved by the BNSS, 2023, while new incidents post-enactment must adhere to the BNSS.
The court clarified that under Section 223(1) of BNSS, a Magistrate must examine the complainant and witnesses before taking cognizance and issuing notice to the accused.
The issuance of notice to the accused prior to the examination of the complainant on oath violates the procedural requirements established under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
