#Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The court granted bail to the accused in a triple-fatality drunken driving case, ruling that Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide) requires proof of knowledge of likely death from the factual matrix, not merely the fact of intoxication. The distinction between culpable homicide under Section 105 and rash or negligent act under Section 106 BNS is a question for trial, not the bail stage.

The Delhi High Court held that an unverified internal police database report, marked for investigative reference only, cannot prove criminal involvement. It directed the DCP to verify and correct the erroneous entry linking the petitioner to an FIR where he was unnamed within four weeks, and barred reliance on the report in court.

The ruling upholds charges against female petitioners in December 2023 to July 2024 incidents, clarifying that liability for gang rape under BNS Section 70 extends to those sharing the common intention to commit rape, even without commission of the act.

Orissa HC quashed cognizance against school staff, holding a mere warning/reprimand lacks mens rea for abetment of suicide under Sections 107/3(5) BNS, and that disciplinary action without criminal intent cannot sustain such charges.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the FIR, ruling that Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita demands a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death. A contractor’s failure to provide safety equipment alone, without proof that the omission caused the fatality, does not attract criminal liability. The decision narrows the reach of criminal negligence provisions for employers and contractors across India.

Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the Devi Villa Homestay owner, ruling that offences alleged under the now-repealed Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 239 of the BNSS are untenable because the conduct occurred after the statute’s repeal. The decision underscores that once a law is repealed, no statutory duty to report arises, shielding individuals from retroactive criminal liability.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a dispute over unpaid industrial oil supplies is a civil matter, so the criminal case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was dismissed. This clarifies that commercial payment conflicts cannot be pursued as cheating or criminal breach of trust without clear criminal intent, safeguarding businesses from misuse of criminal law.

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust, holding that a commercial dispute lacking proof of dishonest intent at inception cannot be prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The ruling protects businesses from criminal charges unless fraud is clearly established, shaping future FIRs in commercial disagreements.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the charge-sheet and all criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita because the parties reached a voluntary settlement, even though the offence under Section 109 is non-compoundable. This establishes that a genuine settlement can override non-compoundability, guiding future compounding applications.

Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench) grants interim anticipatory bail to a man facing BNS and POCSO charges, citing unexplained FIR delay and counter-blast allegations. The court protects liberty till final hearing, imposing PR bond of ₹15,000 with conditions.

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) denied anticipatory bail to an Assistant Revenue Officer in a Rs. 310.20 Crore land acquisition fraud case, stressing custodial interrogation for effective investigation under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Prevention of Corruption Act. The ruling underscores the court's stance on fraudulent award disbursements and the necessity of custodial probes in high-stakes corruption matters.

Bombay HC clarifies that offences under FSSA attracting up to seven years' imprisonment trigger Section 35(3) BNSS compliance for anticipatory bail. Applicants must attend police stations per written notice or face arrest, subject to next hearing on 11 August 2026.

Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 126(2) and 118(1) after parties amicably settled disputes, relying on Gian Singh and Section 528 BNSS. The ruling reinforces inherent powers of High Courts to quash cases post-compromise, benefiting accused in non-compoundable offences.

Allahabad HC granted bail in a false promise of marriage case under BNS Sections 69 and 351(3), noting the victim’s refusal to undergo medico-legal examination and the applicant’s lack of criminal history. The court emphasized the absence of incriminating evidence and jail overcrowding while citing Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench granted anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged money-lending fraud and environmental offences, emphasizing prima facie case and cooperation with investigation. The court noted the applicant's repayment efforts and lack of criminal antecedents as key factors in its order.