Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The court has emphasized that applications under BNSS are to be considered within the framework of the Act, and the inherent powers of the court are invoked accordingly.
Rejection and remand of applications under BNSS:
For instance, the Odisha High Court remanded cases back to trial courts to consider applications under Section 187(3) of BNSS, taking into account recent judgments ["JATI @ SUSANTA ROUT vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"].
Jurisdiction and procedural clarifications:
The Supreme Court has also clarified that appeals filed against judgments under BNSS are governed by the Limitation Act, and procedural compliance is necessary ["Anwar Hussain vs Saiyad Ali Abbas Naqvi - Madhya Pradesh"].
Notable judgments and legal principles:
The Bombay High Court highlighted that challenges to cognizance orders must be made by amending pleadings to include the order of cognizance, following Supreme Court directives ["MUNIRODDIN MAINODDIN SHAIKH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - Bombay"].
Specific case examples:
Analysis and Conclusion:The Allahabad High Court and other courts are consistently applying Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for challenging criminal proceedings, especially after the BNSS's effective date of July 1, 2024. Courts are emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements, the importance of recent judicial pronouncements, and the need to interpret BNSS provisions in harmony with Supreme Court rulings. Several cases have been remanded for reconsideration, highlighting the evolving judicial stance on the application of BNSS in criminal matters. Petitioners are advised to frame their applications carefully within this legal framework, considering recent judgments and procedural mandates ["Mahendra Singh And 6 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another - Allahabad"] ["CHANDRAKANTA BEHERA vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"].
References:- ["Mahendra Singh And 6 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another - Allahabad"]- ["CHANDRAKANTA BEHERA vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["JATI @ SUSANTA ROUT vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["INDOR00000021122"]- ["YOUTHDOSA FOOD SERVICES LLP VS. KISETSU SAISON FINANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Delhi"]- ["AJIT KUMAR DUTTA vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR - Gauhati"]- ["Anwar Hussain vs Saiyad Ali Abbas Naqvi - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["MUNIRODDIN MAINODDIN SHAIKH AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - Bombay"]- ["ANGURI DEVI vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Supreme Court"]- ["ANITA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Supreme Court"]
In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal law, the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973, to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has created significant procedural shifts. A key question arises: Application BNSS No 39747/2025 Allahabad High Court – is it maintainable under the old regime? This blog post delves into the High Court's stance, drawing from pivotal judgments and procedural guidelines to clarify the position for petitioners, lawyers, and legal enthusiasts.
The enforcement of BNSS on July 1, 2024, replaced Cr.P.C. and related laws, mandating adherence to new provisions for post-enforcement filings. Generally, applications challenging proceedings after this date must align with BNSS, rendering many Cr.P.C.-based petitions obsolete. This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a qualified attorney for specific cases.
The core ruling is clear: The application BNSS No 39747/2025 filed before the Allahabad High Court is not maintainable under the current framework. Proceedings challenged post-BNSS enforcement fall under the new law, superseding Cr.P.C. Section 482. The High Court has consistently held that such applications must be filed under Section 528 of BNSS, which governs inherent powers akin to the old Section 482. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905
In Deepu & Others v. State of U.P. (Order dated 06.08.2024), the Court explicitly stated: all applications filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. after 01.07.2024 are not maintainable as the Cr.P.C. has been repealed and New Act i.e. BNSS has been enforced on 01.07.2024. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905 This judgment sets the precedent, dismissing similar petitions and granting liberty to refile under BNSS.
BNSS's introduction streamlined criminal procedures but required procedural realignment. Section 531 of BNSS repeals Cr.P.C., with saving clauses for ongoing matters. For new challenges, like quashing orders in post-enforcement cases, Section 528 empowers High Courts' inherent jurisdiction. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905
The Allahabad High Court in Deepu emphasized: challenges to proceedings or orders of District Courts after enforcement should be filed under Section 528 of BNSS, not under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905 This aligns with the legislative intent to uniformly apply the new code.
Filed well after enforcement, this application targets proceedings under the new regime. Courts have dismissed analogous filings, noting Cr.P.C.'s obsolescence. The petitioner's remedy lies in a fresh Section 528 BNSS application. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905
High Courts across India have reinforced this transition, providing context for BNSS's procedural dominance.
In a Orissa High Court ruling on default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS, the court clarified the statutory 90-day charge-sheet period overrides prior state amendments like Odisha's 120-day extension. The court found trial court misapplied law, setting statutory period for charge-sheet at 90 days, thus granting entitlement to default bail. Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap vs State of Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 4491 This underscores BNSS's precedence post-repeal. In Re: XXX VS State Of Arunachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1360
Another Orissa decision affirmed: applications for pre-arrest bail post-enforcement must use Sections 482 and 528 BNSS, even for pre-BNSS FIRs. The court ruled that bail applications filed after the BNSS's enforcement for FIRs registered before its enactment must comply with the BNSS provisions. In Re: XXX VS State Of Arunachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1360 The Division Bench agreed with Allahabad's Deepu view on Section 531. In Re: XXX VS State Of Arunachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1360
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) echoed procedural shifts in bail contexts, stressing superior court applications under BNSS. P. Parthiban vs The State of Tamilnadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75962 Similarly, Orissa's BLAPL No.11633/2025 invoked Section 483 BNSS for bail, highlighting adaptation. SRINIVASCHARY K.R. @ SRINIVASCHARI K.R. @ K.R. SRINIBASH ACHARYA @ K.R.S. ACHARY vs STATE OF ODISHA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 423
These rulings illustrate a nationwide consensus: post-July 1, 2024, filings adhere to BNSS, with Cr.P.C. restricted to legacy matters. Allahabad's stance in BNSS No 39747/2025 fits this pattern.
Jurisdiction now hinges on initiation date. Post-enforcement proceedings demand BNSS compliance; pre-enforcement pendency may allow Cr.P.C. continuity. However, new applications universally shift to BNSS. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905In Re: XXX VS State Of Arunachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1360
Petitioners facing similar issues should:- File afresh under Section 528 BNSS for quashing or inherent relief.- Verify proceeding dates against July 1, 2024.- Reference Deepu and allied judgments for arguments. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905
Exceptions are narrow: pending pre-enforcement cases. Here, no such applicability exists. Courts typically dismiss non-compliant petitions, avoiding abuse of process. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905
Application BNSS No 39747/2025 exemplifies the Cr.P.C.-BNSS divide. Allahabad High Court, per Deepu, deems it not maintainable, directing BNSS recourse. This transition ensures procedural uniformity but demands vigilance.
Key Takeaways:- Post-01.07.2024: Use Section 528 BNSS, not Cr.P.C. 482. Kasireddy Upender Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 905- 90-day charge-sheet under BNSS governs default bail. Vicky Kumar @ Kashyap vs State of Odisha - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 4491- Bail/quashing applications adapt to new sections nationwide. In Re: XXX VS State Of Arunachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Gau) 1360- Always check enforcement timelines for maintainability.
Stay updated on criminal law shifts—BNSS ushers efficiency but requires precise navigation. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
#BNSS #CrPCtoBNSS #AllahabadHC
January 22, 2026 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ... HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Mahendra Singh …..Applicant(s) And 6 Others Versus State of U.P. and …..Opposite Party(s) Another Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hukum Singh, Puneet Bhadauria Counsel ... (vi) If the criminal proceeding or chargesheet is challenged before the High Court on or after 01.07.2024, where the investigation was conducted as per Cr.P.....
The application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 187 of the BNSS has been rejected vide order dated 27.9.2025 at Annexure-3. ... arises out of Bhadrak Town P.S Case No.225 of 2025 thereby rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 187 of the BNSS. ... Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Dec-2025 ....
By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the Petitioners seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash order dated 11.08.2025 arising out of Balasore Cyber P.S. Case No.12 of 2025, corresponding to C.T. ... Even at the time of hearing of the application under Section 187(3) of BNSS, the charge-sheet was not before the learned trial Court. ... Thereafter, on the 92nd day, i.e. on 12.08.2025, #HL....
State of Odisha (CRLMC No.3669 of 2025, decided on 24.11.2025) at Anneuxre-5, submitted before this Court that in an identical matter, this Court has laid down the law with regard to the applicability of Section 187(3) of the BNSS. ... Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture, contended that while passing the impugned order dated 07.11.2025, the trial court has not taken note of the aforesaid judgment as the same was not available at the time of hearing of....
Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th day of August, 2025/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Aug-2025 19:15:52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL Nos.5527 & 6993 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS). ... Once a Court....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.11633 of 2025 (In the matter of application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023). Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Jan-2026 22:00:58 ... bail application to release the accused on bail.
The observations made by the learned trial court while deciding the application under Section 193(9) BNSS as well as by this court shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner when his application under Section 210 BNSS is considered by the learned trial court. ... But, so far as the application under Section 193(9) BNSS is concerned, this court finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned tria....
We are in perfect agreement with the view expressed by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Deepu (supra). 21. ... The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, while interpreting Section 531 of the BNSS, 2023 has expressed the same view in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12287 of 2024 [Deepu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., order dated 06.08.2024]. ... After taking into consideration the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitendra....
PC, the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ petition under Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous.” 6. ... 2025:BHC-AUG:26167-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION ... No.13424 of 2025] decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3rd September 2025, the application will have to be amended so as to challenge the order of taking cogn....
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 18.11.2025 Delivered on : 03.12.2025 CORAM ... 3.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K.MURALI SHANKAR,J. ... The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on a decision of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.24853 and 24866 of 2025 ( Lokeshwaran Ravi Vs. ... First, the requirement of making an application to the Superi....
(16) Kranti Kumar vs. State of U.P.: Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 7060 of 2002 (Allahabad High Court) (Internal Page-7-8); (18) Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India : (2020) 14 SCC 51 (Para-14); (15) Kranti Kumar vs. State of U.P. : Crl. Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 7050 of 2002 (Allahabad High Court), (Internal Page-11); (14) GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs. Kranti Sinha: (2013) 4 SCC 505, (Para-12, 14, 18, 19); (17) Oanali Ismilji Sadikot vs. State of Gujarat : (2016) SCC OnLine Guj 10055 (Para-63);
Writ Petition No. 20470/2007 before the Allahabad High Court. 2-UGC for continuation of grant for all the posts under the Tenth Plan even under the Eleventh Plan by showing that the appellant was working in the Department of Political Science as on 6th April, 2007. 6. The appellant being aggrieved by the abolition of the post and his consequent removal, filed a Civil Misc. According to the appellant, on the one hand, the respondent-University had stated that his post had been abolished while on the other hand, had requested respondent no.
5. When the caste certificate of the applicant dated 03.08.1993 was cancelled by the Tehsildar, Deoband, vide order dated 26.06.2006, he (applicant) filed a Civil Misc. Vide order dated 27.07.2006, the said petition was disposed of by directing that a fresh order would be passed by the Tehsildar after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Writ Petition No.39734 of 2006 before the Allahabad High Court. After giving due opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the Tehsildar, Deoband passed a detailed order dated 15.01.2007 again cancelling the caste certificate of ....
Aggrieved by the filing of charge sheet against him, Respondent Nos. 11 filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC being Criminal Misc. Application No.33936 of 2008 before the High Court of Allahabad. While directing notice in the issue, the Allahabad High Court stayed the proceedings in Criminal Case No.1951/2008 before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Bareilly.
The Managing Committee of 5th Respondent-college changed its earlier resolution dated 13.06.1999 and sent another decision appointing 3rd Respondent-Dr. Prem Sunder Singh as the officiating principal and thus the matter of appointment on the vacant post of principal has been under dispute. A Writ Petition No. 39747 of 1999 was filed by Dr. Prem Sunder Singh in the Allahabad High Court and the High Court directed the parties to approach the concerned authorities. Accordingly, District Inspector of Schools, Deoria heard 3rd and 4th Respondents and upon perusal of the represen....
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
