The Bombay High Court recently addressed the interplay between the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in an anticipatory bail application. The Court clarified that offences under FSSA do not automatically attract BNS provisions and directed compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 35(3) of BNSS before arrest.
Background & Facts
The Genesis
The applicant, Vasant Anandrao Idhol, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.277 of 2026 registered at Kongaon Police Station, Thane. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 26(1), 26(2)(i), 27(1), 27(3)(e), and 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), read with Sections 274, 3(5), and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Key Facts
- The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with alleged violations of food safety regulations and related penal provisions.
- The FIR was registered on an unspecified date in 2026 at Kongaon Police Station, Thane.
- The applicant’s counsel argued that BNS provisions could not be invoked in relation to FSSA offences based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 502.
- The prosecution opposed this contention, asserting that BNS provisions were applicable.
Procedural History
- 23.07.2026: Anticipatory bail application (ABA No.1937 of 2026) filed before the Bombay High Court.
- The matter was heard on the same day and orders were reserved.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Argued that offences under FSSA do not fall within the ambit of BNS based on Ram Nath v. State of U.P. (2024) 3 SCC 502.
- Relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) to submit that compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS was mandatory before arrest.
For the Respondent State
- Opposed the applicant’s submission, asserting that BNS provisions were applicable to the alleged offences.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing that arrest was not warranted due to the nature of the offences and procedural non-compliance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 could be prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without complying with the procedural safeguards under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned senior counsel for the applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 502 to argue that offences under FSSA do not automatically attract penal provisions under BNS. Additionally, counsel cited Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) to emphasize that compliance with Section 35(3) BNSS was mandatory before arrest, particularly where offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
For the Respondent
The learned APP for the respondents opposed the applicant’s submissions, asserting that the BNS provisions were applicable to the alleged offences and that no procedural safeguards had been violated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between FSSA and BNS, noting the applicant’s reliance on Ram Nath v. State of U.P. (2024) 3 SCC 502. The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) had emphasized the importance of procedural compliance under Section 35(3) BNSS before arrest, particularly in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
"Learned senior counsel for applicant submitted that in view of the alleged offences under FSSA, provisions of BNS could not have been invoked in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Nath vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 502, however, learned APP for the respondents had strongly opposed this submission."
The Court also noted that the applicant’s offences under FSSA, when read with BNS, attracted imprisonment up to seven years, thereby triggering the procedural safeguards under Section 35(3) BNSS. The Court directed the prosecution to serve a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS upon the applicant and directed the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.
The Verdict
The Court granted conditional anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant was directed to attend the Investigating Officer on 27.07.2026 and 28.07.2026 between 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and whenever called upon by written communication. The applicant was directed not to be arrested till the next date, subject to compliance with the above conditions. The matter was listed for further hearing on 11.08.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
FSSA Offences Are Not Automatically BNS Offences
Practitioners must carefully examine whether alleged offences under FSSA can be prosecuted under BNS. The Court’s reliance on Ram Nath v. State of U.P. (2024) 3 SCC 502 underscores the need to distinguish between regulatory and penal offences.
- Key takeaway: Offences under FSSA do not automatically attract BNS provisions unless specifically linked by statutory interpretation or judicial precedent.
Procedural Safeguards Under BNSS Are Non-Negotiable
The Court’s direction to comply with Section 35(3) BNSS highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
-
Actionable insight: Lawyers must ensure that prosecuting agencies comply with Section 35(3) BNSS before seeking arrest in such cases.
-
Practical step: Advise clients to cooperate with investigations upon receipt of a Section 35(3) notice to avoid arrest.
Anticipatory Bail Jurisprudence Evolves with Statutory Changes
The judgment reflects the evolving jurisprudence on anticipatory bail, particularly in the context of overlapping statutory regimes.
- Strategic note: Anticipatory bail applications must account for recent statutory amendments and Supreme Court precedents to craft effective arguments.
