BNSS Important Sections for Judiciary and AIBE Exams

0 0 Monday, June 22, 2026 2026-06-22T07:31:00+05:30 Edit this post
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is one of the three new criminal laws that came into effect in India, replacing the Code of Crimin

BNSS Important Sections for Judiciary and AIBE Exams: Your Complete 2026 Guide

If you are preparing for the Judiciary Exams or the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) in 2026, there is one law that has completely reshaped the landscape of criminal procedure in India — the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, commonly known as BNSS. 

This new legislation replaced the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on July 1, 2024, and it has introduced sweeping changes that every law student, judicial aspirant, and practicing advocate must master thoroughly. Whether you are sitting for the Rajasthan Judicial Services, Delhi Judicial Services, MP Judiciary, UP PCS-J, or the AIBE 21, BNSS is no longer optional knowledge — it is absolutely central to your success.

In this comprehensive guide, we will walk you through the most important sections of BNSS that you need to memorize, understand, and apply for your upcoming exams. We have organized everything in a way that makes revision easy, concept retention strong, and exam application seamless. No tables, no clutter — just clear bullet points, engaging explanations, and the kind of detail that helps you write impressive answers in mains and score confidently in prelims. Let us dive straight in.

Why BNSS Matters for Judiciary and AIBE Exams

Before we get into the specific sections, let us understand why BNSS has become such a big deal. For decades, the CrPC was the backbone of criminal procedure in India. It governed everything from how an FIR is filed to how a trial concludes. But the CrPC was a product of colonial times, drafted in 1898 and last overhauled in 1973. 

It simply could not keep pace with modern crimes, digital evidence, cyber fraud, organized crime, and the need for faster justice delivery.The BNSS was enacted to modernize this entire framework. It introduces digital FIRs, mandatory forensic investigations, trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders, video conferencing for court proceedings, and much more. For exam purposes, this means old CrPC section numbers have changed, new procedures have been added, and the examiners are eager to test whether you know the new law inside out. 

In the AIBE 21, BNSS now carries a weightage of approximately 10 to 12 percent of the total paper. In state judiciary exams, BNSS questions appear in both prelims and mains, often testing your ability to compare old CrPC provisions with new BNSS sections. So if you want to stay ahead of the competition, you need to treat BNSS as one of your top-priority subjects.

Section 173 BNSS — FIR Registration: The Gateway to Criminal Justice

Let us start with the very first step of any criminal case — the First Information Report, or FIR. Under the old CrPC, this was governed by Section 154. Under BNSS, it has moved to Section 173, and the changes are significant.Section 173 of BNSS deals with information in cognizable cases. The biggest change here is that FIR registration is now backed by statutory recognition of Zero FIR and electronic FIR facilities. This is a game-changer for accessibility and justice delivery.Here is what you need to know about Section 173:

Zero FIR is now statutory, not just administrative practice. Under Section 173(1), information about a cognizable offence can be given to any police officer in charge of any police station, regardless of where the offence actually took place. The officer is bound to register it. This means no more running from one police station to another just because the crime happened in a different jurisdiction. The police station where you file the Zero FIR will record it and then transfer it to the station with actual territorial jurisdiction for investigation.
  • Electronic FIR or e-FIR is now formally recognized. Section 173(1) explicitly allows information to be given by electronic communication — through email, online portals, mobile apps, or any digital means. When you submit information electronically, the police officer must take it on record. However, there is a catch: the person giving the information must sign the recorded information within three days for it to be validly converted into an FIR. This provision brings the FIR process into the digital age and addresses the reality that many complainants, especially in cyber fraud cases, need to act fast.
  • Preliminary inquiry is permitted only for mid-level offences. Section 173(3) introduces a new concept: for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years, the police officer may conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR, but only with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the inquiry must be completed within 14 days. For offences punishable with seven years or more, registration is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry can be substituted. This is a refinement of the Lalita Kumari judgment framework and is a hot topic for exam questions.
  • Free copy to the informant. Section 173(2) mandates that a copy of the recorded information must be given to the informant free of cost. This was always a good practice, but now it is a statutory right.
Remedy if police refuse to register FIR. If a police officer refuses to record the information, the informant can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4). The SP, if satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him. Additionally, the informant can approach a Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS for a direction to register and investigate.

For exam purposes, remember that Section 173 BNSS corresponds to Section 154 CrPC, but with major additions. Questions often test whether you know the difference between mandatory registration for serious offences and preliminary inquiry for mid-level offences. The three-day signing requirement for e-FIRs and the statutory backing for Zero FIR are also favorite MCQ topics.

Section 176 BNSS — Police Investigation and the Mandatory Forensic Revolution

Once an FIR is registered, the investigation begins. Section 176 of BNSS governs the procedure for investigation by police, and it contains one of the most talked-about reforms in the entire new criminal law framework — mandatory forensic investigation for serious crimes.Here is what makes Section 176 so important:

  • Mandatory forensic expert visit for serious offences. Section 176(3) is a landmark provision. It mandates that for every offence punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more, the police officer in charge of the police station must ensure that a forensic expert visits the crime scene to collect forensic evidence. This is not optional — it is mandatory. The process of evidence collection must also be recorded through videography using a mobile phone or any other electronic device. This provision aims to bring scientific rigor into investigations and reduce reliance on oral testimony alone.

  • Videography of evidence collection. The requirement to videograph the forensic evidence collection process is revolutionary. It ensures transparency, creates an auditable record, and prevents allegations of evidence tampering or planting. The recording must be done on a mobile phone or electronic device and preserved for trial.
  • State government notification for forensic facilities. The provision gives state governments a window of five years to develop the necessary forensic infrastructure. If a state does not have adequate forensic facilities, the state government can notify the use of forensic facilities from another state until local infrastructure is developed. This is a practical acknowledgment that not all states are equally equipped right now.
  • Medical examination of the accused. Section 176 also covers the medical examination of the accused by a registered medical practitioner at the request of a police officer. If the offence is of such a nature that an examination of the accused's person may afford evidence, a registered medical practitioner can conduct the examination. For female accused, the examination must be conducted only by or under the supervision of a female registered medical practitioner.
  • Medical examination of rape victims. Section 184 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 164A CrPC) provides for the medical examination of the victim of rape. The examination must be conducted with the consent of the woman or a person competent to give consent on her behalf, and it must be done within 24 hours from the time of receiving information about the offence. This is a critical safeguard for victims of sexual offences.

    • For judiciary exams, Section 176(3) is almost guaranteed to appear in questions because it represents the biggest reform in BNSS. Examiners love asking about the seven-year threshold, the mandatory videography requirement, and the timeline for state governments to develop forensic infrastructure. In AIBE, questions on forensic evidence and medical examination procedures are common.

    Section 187 BNSS — Custody and Remand: The Heart of Police Powers

    Section 187 of BNSS is perhaps the most debated and analyzed provision in the entire Sanhita. It corresponds to Section 167 of the old CrPC, which governed the procedure when investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. But Section 187 introduces changes that have significant implications for the rights of the accused and the powers of the police.Here is a detailed breakdown:

    • Production before Magistrate within 24 hours. Section 58 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 57 CrPC) mandates that a person arrested without a warrant shall not be detained in police custody for more than 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court. This is a constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) of the Constitution. If the police need more time for investigation, they must produce the accused before a Magistrate under Section 187.

  • Police custody limited to 15 days. Section 187(2) states that the Magistrate may authorize detention of the accused in police custody for a term not exceeding 15 days in the whole. This 15-day limit is the maximum police custody that can be granted, and it can be given either continuously or in parts. This is a crucial protection against prolonged police interrogation and potential custodial abuse.
  • Total detention period: 90 days for serious offences, 60 days for others. Beyond the initial 15 days of police custody, the Magistrate may authorize further detention, but the total period cannot exceed 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. For all other offences, the total detention period cannot exceed 60 days. This is the same as the old CrPC framework, but the language in BNSS has been slightly modified.
  • Default bail or statutory bail. Once the maximum detention period of 60 or 90 days is reached, the accused acquires an indefeasible right to be released on bail. This is commonly known as default bail or statutory bail. The right to default bail is not just a statutory right but a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this right must be granted as a matter of course once the conditions are satisfied.
  • Magistrate can authorize detention irrespective of jurisdiction. A significant change under Section 187(2) is that any Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded can authorize detention, whether or not he has jurisdiction to try the case. This is particularly relevant for transit remand situations where the accused is arrested in one state and needs to be produced before a Magistrate in another state before being transported to the jurisdictional court.
  • Consideration of bail status. Section 187(2) requires the Magistrate to consider whether the accused has been released on bail or whether his bail has been cancelled. This is a new addition that has been criticized for creating ambiguity, as it suggests that the Magistrate's power to authorize remand depends on the bail status of the accused.
  • Custody defined narrowly. Section 187(5) defines custody as either police custody (in a police station by a police officer) or judicial custody (in prison). This narrow definition excludes house arrest and custody by other investigating agencies like the ED or CBI, which has raised concerns about whether such forms of custody are adequately regulated under BNSS.

    • For exam purposes, Section 187 is a goldmine of questions. Prelims often test the 15-day police custody limit, the 60/90-day total detention period, and the concept of default bail. Mains questions frequently ask you to critically analyze the changes from Section 167 CrPC to Section 187 BNSS, particularly the omission of the phrase "otherwise than in the custody of police" and the potential implications for the rights of the accused. Comparative questions between CrPC and BNSS are very common in judiciary exams.

    Section 58 BNSS — The 24-Hour Rule: Protecting Personal Liberty

    Section 58 of BNSS is the statutory embodiment of one of the most fundamental protections in criminal law — the 24-hour rule. It corresponds to Section 57 of the old CrPC, but its importance cannot be overstated, especially in the context of constitutional law and fundamental rights.Here is what Section 58 entails:

    • No detention beyond 24 hours without Magistrate's order. Section 58 explicitly states that no police officer shall detain a person arrested without a warrant for more than 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's court. This is not a mere procedural formality — it is a constitutional safeguard derived from Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

  • The 24-hour period starts from the moment of actual arrest. Courts have clarified that the 24-hour period begins from the first moment of coercive restraint, not from the time recorded in the arrest memo. If a person is effectively under police control — being kept overnight, traveling with police officers, unable to leave at will — the 24-hour clock starts ticking from that moment, even if a formal arrest memo has not yet been prepared. This is a critical point that has been emphasized in recent judicial decisions.
  • Magistrate's role is not mechanical. When the accused is produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and independently assess whether further detention is necessary. Mechanical remand orders that simply rubber-stamp police requests violate the constitutional mandate of Section 58 and Article 22(2).
  • Consequences of violation. If the police fail to produce the accused within 24 hours, the detention becomes illegal. The Magistrate may refuse to grant police remand. The accused can file a writ of habeas corpus. The state may be liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights. In some cases, the illegality of detention may even affect the admissibility of evidence obtained during the illegal custody period.
  • Connection with Article 21 and Article 22(2). Section 58 is not just a procedural provision — it is a safeguard for personal liberty under Article 21 and a specific implementation of Article 22(2), which mandates that every arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours. The Supreme Court in cases like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal has emphasized that timely production before a Magistrate is essential to prevent custodial abuse and unlawful detention.

    • For judiciary exams, Section 58 is frequently tested in combination with constitutional law questions. Examiners love asking about the interplay between Section 58 BNSS, Article 22(2), and Article 21. In AIBE, questions about the 24-hour rule and the consequences of its violation are standard. Make sure you can explain not just the section but also the constitutional philosophy behind it.

    Section 356 BNSS — Trial in Absentia: A Revolutionary Step

    Section 356 of BNSS is one of the most revolutionary provisions in the new criminal law framework. It introduces, for the first time in Indian criminal procedure, a comprehensive statutory framework for trial in absentia — that is, conducting a full criminal trial, including judgment and sentence, even when the accused is not physically present in court. This replaces the limited provision of Section 299 CrPC, which only allowed recording of evidence in the accused's absence but did not permit final judgment.Here is everything you need to know about Section 356:

    • Applies only to proclaimed offenders for serious offences. Section 356 applies only when the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 84 BNSS (corresponding to Section 82 CrPC), and the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more. This ensures that trial in absentia is reserved for the most serious crimes where the public interest in completing the trial outweighs the procedural cost of proceeding without the accused.

  • The accused must be a proclaimed offender. Before Section 356 can be invoked, the court must have issued a proclamation under Section 84 requiring the accused to appear at a specified place and time, and the accused must have failed to appear. The court must then formally declare the person a proclaimed offender. This is a mandatory precondition.
  • Two warrants must have been issued and returned unexecuted. The court must have issued at least two warrants of arrest that were returned unexecuted. This is evidence that ordinary process has failed to secure the accused's presence and that a proclamation was warranted. This two-warrants rule adds an additional procedural check.
  • Public notice in two newspapers. A public notice requiring the accused to appear must be published in two newspapers — one in English and one in a vernacular language. The notice must be calculated to bring the proceedings to the accused's attention even if they are abroad. Additionally, the court must inform a relative or friend of the accused about the commencement of the trial.
  • 90-day waiting period from framing of charges. The court must wait at least 90 days from the date of framing charges before commencing trial in absentia. This cooling-off period gives the accused a defined window to surrender or arrange representation before the trial moves forward without them.
  • State must provide defence counsel. The state is required to provide a defence counsel for the absent accused at its own expense. This is a critical safeguard to ensure that the trial remains adversarial in nature even without the accused's physical presence. The quality of this legal representation is essential to the fairness of the trial.
  • Recording of evidence by audio-visual means. The deposition and examination of witnesses may be recorded by audio-visual electronic means, as far as practicable, and such recording shall be preserved. This modernizes the trial process and creates a permanent record that the accused can review if they later appear.
  • Right to appeal within three years. The convicted person has three years from the date of judgment to file an appeal. This longer-than-standard appeal window is designed to give the absent person, who may be abroad, sufficient time to obtain notice, engage counsel, and prepare grounds of appeal.
  • No appeal unless the accused appears before the appellate court. No appeal shall lie against the judgment in such trials unless the proclaimed offender presents himself before the court of appeal. This is a unique feature that ties the right of appeal to the accused's physical presence before the appellate court.
  • Constitutional concerns and safeguards. Critics have raised concerns that trial in absentia may violate the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right of the accused to be present, confront witnesses, and participate in their defence. However, proponents argue that the extensive procedural safeguards in Section 356 — the proclaimed offender declaration, the two-warrants requirement, the public notice, the 90-day waiting period, and the mandatory legal representation — ensure that the trial remains fair even in the accused's absence. The Supreme Court will inevitably be called upon to adjudicate these constitutional questions.

    • For judiciary exams, Section 356 is a treasure trove of potential questions. Prelims questions often test the conditions for invoking Section 356 — the proclaimed offender status, the two-warrants requirement, the 90-day waiting period, and the applicability only to serious offences. Mains questions frequently ask you to critically examine whether Section 356 strikes the right balance between judicial efficiency and fair trial rights under Article 21. Comparative questions with international frameworks for trial in absentia are also possible. In AIBE, questions about the conditions and safeguards for trial in absentia are becoming increasingly common.

    Section 84 BNSS — Proclamation for Person Absconding

    Section 84 of BNSS is the gateway to Section 356. It governs the process by which a court can declare a person a proclaimed offender, and it contains several important changes from the old Section 82 CrPC.Here is what Section 84 provides:

    • Court may issue proclamation if accused is absconding. If a court has reason to believe that a person against whom a warrant has been issued is absconding or hiding to avoid execution of the warrant, it may issue a formal public proclamation requiring the individual to appear at a specified place and time. The date specified must be at least 30 days from the date of publication of the proclamation.

  • Manner of publication. The proclamation must be made public in several ways: it should be read out loud in a noticeable place in the town or village where the person usually lives; it should be posted at a visible spot on the person's house or in a well-known place in the town or village; a copy should be displayed in a visible area of the courthouse; and the court may order publication in a local daily newspaper if it considers it necessary. Under BNSS, courts can also authorize publication on police portals or digital dashboards, reflecting the digital age.
  • Proclamation can be pasted in presence of any adult family member. Unlike the old CrPC, which required the proclamation to be pasted in the presence of adult male family members, Section 84 of BNSS allows the notice to be pasted in the presence of any adult member of the family, including female members. This is a progressive change that recognizes gender equality.
  • Declaration as proclaimed offender for serious offences. Under Section 84(4), if the proclamation is for someone accused of a serious offence punishable with ten years or more in prison, life imprisonment, or death, and that person does not appear at the time and place mentioned, the court can, after proper inquiry, declare them a "proclaimed offender." The scope of offences covered has been expanded from the old CrPC to include economic offences and organized crime under the new BNS.
  • Consequences of being declared a proclaimed offender. Once declared a proclaimed offender, the person's name is entered into a national database of fugitives. Their property can be attached under Section 85 BNSS. They may face trial in absentia under Section 356. They cannot renew passports, buy properties, or register vehicles. Their photos may be posted in public areas and police stations, and a bounty may be placed on their arrest. Additionally, evading the proclamation is a distinct offence under Section 209 BNS (formerly Section 174A IPC), which is non-bailable.
  • Attachment of property under Section 85 BNSS. If a court issues a proclamation declaring someone a proclaimed offender, it can also order the attachment of that person's movable and immovable property. The court can attach property by physically taking possession, appointing a receiver, or issuing an order stopping anyone from dealing with the property. For immovable property that pays tax to the state government, the Collector handles the attachment.
  • Release of attached property under Section 86 BNSS. If the proclaimed offender appears within two years from the date of attachment, the court can release the property to him after deducting the government's expenses. This provides a window for the accused to reclaim their property if they surrender.

    • For exam purposes, Section 84 is important because it is the prerequisite for Section 356. Questions often test the 30-day notice period, the manner of publication, the expanded scope of proclaimed offender status, and the consequences under Sections 85 and 86. The change from "adult male" to "any adult member" in the presence requirement is a favorite MCQ topic.

    Section 105 BNSS — Recording of Search and Seizure Through Audio-Video Electronic Means

    Section 105 of BNSS is another modernizing provision that reflects the digital transformation of criminal procedure. It mandates the recording of search and seizure operations through audio-video electronic means, preferably using a mobile phone.Here is what Section 105 provides:

    • Mandatory audio-video recording of search and seizure. The process of conducting a search of a place or taking possession of any property, article, or thing under the relevant chapter or under Section 185 (search by police officer), including the preparation of the list of all things seized and the signing of such list by witnesses, must be recorded through any audio-video electronic means. The preference is for mobile phones, given their widespread availability.

  • Forwarding the recording to the Magistrate. The police officer must, without delay, forward the recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. This ensures judicial oversight and creates an official record that can be reviewed if the legality of the search is challenged.
  • Purpose and significance. The purpose of this provision is to add transparency to search and seizure operations, which have historically been one of the most contested stages of investigation. Improper conduct during search and seizure has often resulted in acquittals or mistrials. By integrating video evidence, the legislature aims to deter misconduct, uphold the evidentiary sanctity of the investigation, and provide courts with an objective record of what actually happened during the search.
  • Challenges in implementation. Despite the noble intention, real-world implementation faces challenges. Many police stations, especially in rural and semi-urban areas, lack body cameras, portable video equipment, or secure storage systems. Officers may not be adequately trained to operate recording devices or preserve the chain of custody for digital evidence. Search operations often occur in adverse conditions — poor lighting, remote locations, chaotic public settings — where videography is difficult. There are also privacy concerns about recording inside private premises, especially homes or religious places.
  • Connection with BSA on electronic evidence. The recordings made under Section 105 BNSS become electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act. BSA treats electronic records as primary evidence, which means the video recordings can be directly admitted in court without needing to produce the original device, provided their authenticity can be established.

    • For judiciary exams, Section 105 is important because it represents the intersection of criminal procedure and digital evidence law. Questions may test the mandatory nature of the recording, the requirement to forward it to the Magistrate, and the connection with BSA provisions on electronic evidence. In AIBE, questions about search and seizure procedures under BNSS are common, and Section 105 is a key addition that examiners are likely to test.

    Section 482 BNSS — Anticipatory Bail: New Stringencies

    Section 482 of BNSS corresponds to Section 438 of the old CrPC, which governed anticipatory bail or pre-arrest bail. While the core concept remains the same, BNSS has introduced new stringencies that make the process more rigorous.Here is what Section 482 provides:

    • Mandatory notice framework. Under Section 482, if the prosecution demands it, the Sessions Court or High Court must give a statutory 7-day notice of the anticipatory bail application to the Public Prosecutor before granting final relief. This means the prosecution gets a formal opportunity to oppose the application, which was not explicitly required under the old CrPC.

  • Ex-parte interim relief still possible. You can still get immediate protection from arrest if you can prove to the judge that giving notice to the Public Prosecutor will result in your immediate, vindictive arrest before the hearing. However, courts are now demanding exponentially higher proof of "political vendetta" or "mala fide intention" to grant ex-parte interim stays. The threshold for ex-parte relief has been raised significantly.
  • Mandatory physical presence of the applicant. The BNSS reinforces the court's statutory power to mandate the physical presence of the applicant in the courtroom at the time of the final hearing, strictly if the Public Prosecutor applies for it. This curtails the comfort of high-profile clients who might otherwise hide in different states or avoid media glare while fighting purely through proxy counsel.
  • Continued application of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The landmark Sushila Aggarwal judgment, which held that anticipatory bail need not be time-bound, continues to govern the philosophical application of anticipatory bail under BNSS. The statutory text has been tightened, but the underlying principles developed by the Supreme Court remain relevant.

    • For exam purposes, Section 482 is important because it represents a significant change in bail jurisprudence. Questions often test the new notice requirement, the conditions for ex-parte interim relief, and the mandatory physical presence provision. Comparative questions between Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 BNSS are very likely in judiciary exams.

    Section 355 BNSS — Attendance of Accused Through Video Conferencing

    Section 355 of BNSS is another modernizing provision that reflects the changing nature of court proceedings in the digital age. It corresponds to Section 317 of the old CrPC but expands the scope of virtual attendance.Here is what Section 355 provides:

    • Court may dispense with personal attendance of the accused. At any stage of inquiry or trial, if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that the personal attendance of the accused is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused is persistently disruptive, the court may dispense with his attendance. This discretion applies only when the accused is represented by an advocate.

  • Attendance via audio-video electronic means is equivalent to personal presence. Section 355 expressly includes attendance via audio-video electronic means as equivalent to personal presence. This is a significant statutory recognition of virtual hearings, which became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic and are now a permanent feature of the judicial system.
  • Court may recall the accused at any time. The court retains the power to recall the accused's attendance at any time if it considers his presence necessary. This ensures that the court can require physical presence when circumstances demand it, such as for identification parades, witness confrontations, or sentencing.
  • If accused is unrepresented, court may adjourn or try separately. If the accused is not represented by an advocate and the court dispenses with his attendance, the court may either adjourn the case or try the accused separately, recording reasons for doing so. This protects the rights of unrepresented accused persons.

    • For exam purposes, Section 355 is important because it reflects the modernization of trial procedures. Questions may test the conditions for dispensing with personal attendance, the equivalence of video conferencing with physical presence, and the safeguards for unrepresented accused. In AIBE, questions about the use of technology in criminal proceedings are increasingly common.

    Section 173(3) BNSS — Preliminary Inquiry: A New Dimension

    While we have already discussed Section 173 in the context of FIR registration, Section 173(3) deserves special attention because it introduces a concept that was not explicitly present in the old CrPC — the preliminary inquiry.Here is what Section 173(3) provides:

    • Permitted only for mid-level offences. A preliminary inquiry may be conducted before registering an FIR only for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of three years or more but less than seven years. For offences punishable with seven years or more, registration is mandatory and no preliminary inquiry can be substituted. For offences below three years, the existing summary procedure continues to apply.

  • Requires prior permission of a senior officer. The preliminary inquiry can only be conducted with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This ensures that the decision to delay FIR registration is made at a sufficiently senior level and not left to the discretion of a constable or sub-inspector.
  • Must be completed within 14 days. The preliminary inquiry must be completed within 14 days of receiving the information. This is a strict time limit designed to prevent indefinite delays in registration. If the inquiry concludes that a prima facie case exists, the FIR must be registered immediately.
  • Refinement of the Lalita Kumari judgment. The preliminary inquiry provision is a statutory refinement of the framework established by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2013), which held that FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences but allowed for a limited preliminary inquiry in certain categories of cases. Section 173(3) codifies this exception with specific time limits and oversight requirements.
  • Controversy and constitutional concerns. Critics have argued that the preliminary inquiry provision could be misused to delay or avoid registering FIRs, particularly in cases involving powerful accused persons. However, the strict time limit, the senior officer oversight, and the exclusion of serious offences from the preliminary inquiry scope are designed to prevent such misuse.

    • For exam purposes, Section 173(3) is a hot topic because it represents a significant change from the old CrPC. Questions often test the offences for which preliminary inquiry is permitted, the rank of the officer who must authorize it, the 14-day time limit, and the constitutional balance between immediate registration and preliminary assessment. This is a favorite topic for both prelims and mains in judiciary exams.

    Section 193 BNSS — Police Report (Chargesheet) and Time-Bound Investigation

    Section 193 of BNSS corresponds to Section 173 of the old CrPC, which governed the police report or chargesheet that marks the completion of investigation. However, BNSS has introduced time-bound investigation requirements that make this provision particularly important.Here is what Section 193 provides:

    • Police report must be filed within specified timelines. While the old CrPC did not specify strict timelines for filing the chargesheet, BNSS introduces time-bound investigation for certain categories of offences. For offences under Sections 64 to 71 of the BNS (offences against women, except Section 69) and under the POCSO Act, the chargesheet must be filed within strict timelines. This is designed to ensure speedy justice for victims of sexual offences and children.

  • Chronology of custody for electronic devices. Section 193(2)(i) mandates that the police report must include the chronology of custody in cases involving electronic devices. This is an essential part of establishing a clear chain of custody to ensure that electronic evidence is not altered or tampered with during the investigation. The chain of custody requirement is critical for the admissibility of electronic evidence under the BSA.
  • Mandatory updates to the victim. BNSS requires that the victim be informed about the progress of investigation within 90 days. This is a victim-centric provision that ensures transparency and keeps the victim engaged in the process.
  • Electronic service of summons. The police report can be accompanied by electronic service of summons to accused persons and witnesses, reflecting the digital transformation of the justice system.

    • For exam purposes, Section 193 is important because it connects investigation with the trial process and introduces new requirements for time-bound investigation and electronic evidence handling. Questions may test the timeline requirements for specific offences, the chain of custody requirement for electronic devices, and the victim notification provisions.

    Section 528 BNSS — Saving of Inherent Powers of High Court

    Section 528 of BNSS corresponds to Section 482 of the old CrPC, which is one of the most frequently invoked provisions in criminal practice. It saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.Here is what Section 528 provides:

    • High Court's inherent powers are preserved. Section 528 preserves the High Court's inherent powers, which are a constitutional feature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution. These powers are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the specific powers conferred by the Sanhita.

  • Can be invoked to quash proceedings. The High Court can invoke Section 528 to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence. This is commonly used in cases of false or frivolous FIRs, matrimonial disputes, and commercial transactions that have been given a criminal colour.
  • Can be invoked to prevent abuse of process. The High Court can intervene to prevent abuse of the process of any court, such as when the police are using criminal proceedings to harass an individual, or when the proceedings are being conducted in a manner that violates fundamental fairness.
  • Can be invoked to secure the ends of justice. The High Court can pass any order necessary to secure the ends of justice, which is a broad residual power that allows the court to deal with unforeseen situations and exceptional circumstances.
  • Limitations on inherent powers. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers sparingly and with caution. The powers should not be used to circumvent the normal procedure or to interfere with the statutory rights of the parties. The High Court should not act as a court of appeal when a specific remedy is available under the Sanhita.

    • For exam purposes, Section 528 is important because it is the gateway to High Court intervention in criminal cases. Questions often test the scope of inherent powers, the limitations on their exercise, and the distinction between Section 528 and the specific remedies available under the Sanhita. In AIBE, questions about the High Court's powers under Section 528 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) are common.

    Section 175 BNSS — Police Officer's Power to Investigate Cognizable Cases

    Section 175 of BNSS corresponds to Section 156 of the old CrPC and governs the police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. This is the foundational provision that empowers the police to conduct investigations without a Magistrate's order.Here is what Section 175 provides:

    • Police officer may investigate without Magistrate's order. Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Sanhita.

  • Magistrate's power to direct investigation. Section 175(3) enhances the Magistrate's power to direct investigation compared to the old Section 156(3) CrPC. Under BNSS, when a Magistrate orders an investigation under Section 175(3), the police officer must investigate and submit a report within the time specified by the Magistrate. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation and require periodic reports.
  • Judicial oversight of investigation. The enhanced Magistrate oversight under Section 175(3) is designed to prevent police inaction or delayed investigation, particularly in sensitive cases. The Magistrate can now play a more active role in ensuring that investigations are conducted promptly and thoroughly.

    • For exam purposes, Section 175 is important because it governs the basic framework of police investigation. Questions often test the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the police officer's power to investigate without a Magistrate's order, and the enhanced Magistrate oversight under Section 175(3).

    Section 174 BNSS — Information as to Non-Cognizable Cases and Investigation of Such Cases

    Section 174 of BNSS corresponds to Section 155 of the old CrPC and governs non-cognizable cases. This is an important provision because it establishes the limits of police power in non-cognizable cases.Here is what Section 174 provides:

    • Police officer cannot investigate non-cognizable case without Magistrate's order. Section 174(1) states that when information is given to an officer in charge of a police station about the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall not investigate it without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial. This is the fundamental distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences — the police cannot act on their own in non-cognizable cases.

  • Police officer must refer the informant to the Magistrate. Section 174(2) requires the police officer to refer the informant to the Magistrate. The police cannot simply refuse to act — they must direct the complainant to the appropriate judicial authority.
  • Magistrate may order investigation. A Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial may, upon receiving a complaint of a non-cognizable offence, direct an investigation by a police officer. This is the mechanism by which non-cognizable cases can be investigated.

    • For exam purposes, Section 174 is important because it establishes the basic framework for non-cognizable cases. Questions often test the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the requirement of a Magistrate's order for investigation of non-cognizable cases, and the police officer's duty to refer the informant to the Magistrate.

    Section 48 BNSS — Information to the Person Arrested

    Section 48 of BNSS corresponds to Section 50 of the old CrPC and governs the information that must be given to a person at the time of arrest. This is a critical safeguard for the rights of the arrested person.Here is what Section 48 provides:

    • Grounds of arrest must be informed. Every police officer or other person arresting any person without a warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. This is a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and its violation can render the arrest illegal.

  • Right to bail must be informed. Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, the police officer shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. This ensures that the arrested person is aware of his rights from the very beginning.
  • Connection with Article 22(1). Section 48 is the statutory implementation of Article 22(1), which mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal has emphasized that failure to inform the grounds of arrest is a serious violation of constitutional rights.

    • For exam purposes, Section 48 is important because it is a fundamental safeguard for the rights of the arrested person. Questions often test the information that must be given at the time of arrest, the connection with Article 22(1), and the consequences of failure to inform the grounds of arrest.

    Section 60 BNSS — Arrest to Be Made Strictly According to Law

    Section 60 of BNSS corresponds to Section 60 of the old CrPC and emphasizes that arrests must be made strictly in accordance with law. This is a general but important provision that reinforces the principle of legality in arrests.Here is what Section 60 provides:

    • No unnecessary restraint. The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape. This is a fundamental principle of humane treatment of arrested persons.

  • Arrest must be according to law. Every arrest must be made in accordance with the specific provisions of the Sanhita and other applicable laws. Arbitrary or illegal arrests are prohibited.

    • For exam purposes, Section 60 is important because it reinforces the principle of legality in arrests. Questions may test the requirement that arrests be made strictly according to law and the prohibition on unnecessary restraint.

    Section 63 BNSS — Search of Place Entered by Person Sought to Be Arrested

    Section 63 of BNSS corresponds to Section 47 of the old CrPC and governs the power to search a place where a person sought to be arrested has entered. This is an important provision for understanding the scope of police powers during arrest.Here is what Section 63 provides:

    • Power to break open doors and windows for entry. If any person sought to be arrested enters any place, the person pursuing him has the power to break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place in order to enter it, after giving notice of his authority and purpose.

  • Power to break open doors and windows for exit. If, after notice, the person sought to be arrested is not forthcoming, the person pursuing him has the power to break open any outer or inner door or window in order to liberate himself.
  • Notice requirement. Before breaking open any door or window, the person must give notice of his authority and purpose. This is a safeguard against arbitrary forced entry.

    • For exam purposes, Section 63 is important because it governs the power to search during arrest. Questions may test the notice requirement, the power to break open doors and windows, and the conditions under which such power can be exercised.

    Section 185 BNSS — Search by Police Officer

    Section 185 of BNSS corresponds to Section 165 of the old CrPC and governs the power of a police officer to conduct a search without a warrant. This is a critical provision that balances the need for effective investigation with the protection of privacy rights.Here is what Section 185 provides:

    • Search without warrant when officer has reasonable grounds. Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purpose of the investigation may be found in any place, and that such thing cannot be obtained without undue delay, he may search for such thing in that place.

  • Recording of grounds in writing. Before conducting the search, the police officer must record in writing the grounds of his belief and specify the thing for which search is to be made. This is a safeguard against arbitrary searches.
  • Search conducted in presence of witnesses. The search must be conducted in the presence of at least two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. If no such inhabitants are available or are willing to be present, the search must be conducted in the presence of two persons of any other locality.
  • Audio-video recording under Section 105. As discussed earlier, the search process must be recorded through audio-video electronic means under Section 105 BNSS.

    • For exam purposes, Section 185 is important because it governs one of the most intrusive police powers — the power to search without a warrant. Questions often test the requirement of reasonable grounds, the recording of grounds in writing, the presence of witnesses, and the connection with Section 105 on audio-video recording.

    Section 392 BNSS — Conviction or Acquittal

    Section 392 of BNSS corresponds to Section 235 of the old CrPC and governs the judgment of conviction or acquittal. This is a foundational provision for understanding the conclusion of a trial.Here is what Section 392 provides:

    • Judgment must be based on evidence. The court must decide whether the accused is guilty or not guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial. The judgment must be reasoned and must address all the material evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

  • Conviction or acquittal. If the court finds the accused guilty, it shall convict him and sentence him according to law. If the court finds the accused not guilty, it shall acquit him.
  • Reasons for judgment. The judgment must contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. This ensures that the judgment is transparent and can be reviewed on appeal.

    • For exam purposes, Section 392 is important because it governs the final stage of a trial. Questions may test the requirement that the judgment be based on evidence, the distinction between conviction and acquittal, and the requirement of reasoned judgment.

    Section 415 BNSS — Appeal Against Conviction

    Section 415 of BNSS corresponds to Section 374 of the old CrPC and governs the right to appeal against conviction. This is a critical provision for understanding the appellate system in criminal cases.Here is what Section 415 provides:

    • Right to appeal against conviction. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge may appeal to the High Court. Any person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate may appeal to the Court of Session.

  • Appellate court may confirm, reverse, or modify the judgment. The appellate court has the power to confirm the conviction, reverse the conviction and acquit the accused, or modify the sentence.
  • Right to appeal is a safeguard against wrongful conviction. The right to appeal is a fundamental safeguard against wrongful conviction and ensures that the accused has an opportunity to challenge the trial court's decision before a higher court.

    • For exam purposes, Section 415 is important because it governs the appellate system. Questions often test the hierarchy of appellate courts, the grounds for appeal, and the powers of the appellate court.

    How to Prepare BNSS for Judiciary and AIBE Exams: A Strategic Approach

    Now that we have covered the most important sections of BNSS, let us discuss how to prepare this subject effectively for your exams. BNSS is a high-scoring subject if approached strategically, but it can be overwhelming if you try to memorize every section without understanding the underlying concepts.Here are some strategic tips for mastering BNSS:

    • Focus on clusters, not individual sections. Instead of trying to memorize every section number, focus on thematic clusters — FIR and registration (Section 173), investigation and forensic evidence (Section 176), custody and remand (Section 187), trial in absentia (Section 356), search and seizure (Section 105), bail (Section 482), and appeals (Section 415). This cluster-based approach helps you see the connections between different sections and makes revision more efficient.

  • Create comparative charts for CrPC vs BNSS. One of the most effective ways to prepare for BNSS is to create comparative charts that map old CrPC sections to new BNSS sections. This helps you identify the changes and continuities between the two laws. For example, Section 154 CrPC became Section 173 BNSS, Section 167 CrPC became Section 187 BNSS, and Section 299 CrPC became Section 356 BNSS. Knowing these mappings is essential for answering comparative questions in exams.
  • Practice previous year questions. BNSS is a predictable subject, and previous year questions from both judiciary exams and AIBE can give you a clear idea of what to expect. Focus on questions about FIR registration, custody periods, bail provisions, trial procedures, and the new provisions like trial in absentia and mandatory forensic investigation.
  • Write practice answers for mains. For judiciary mains exams, practice writing detailed answers on topics like the constitutional validity of trial in absentia under Section 356, the implications of the preliminary inquiry provision under Section 173(3), and the changes in police custody rules under Section 187. Use the IRAC method — Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — to structure your answers clearly.
  • Stay updated on judicial interpretations. The new criminal laws are still being interpreted by courts, and new judgments are coming out regularly. Stay updated on Supreme Court and High Court decisions interpreting BNSS provisions, particularly on bail, custody, and trial in absentia. These judgments can provide valuable material for your mains answers and help you understand the practical application of the law.
  • Use the bare act as your primary text. There is no substitute for reading the BNSS bare act itself. Make it your primary text and read it multiple times. Pay special attention to the definitions, the illustrations, and the provisos, as these are often the basis for exam questions.
  • Revise regularly and test yourself. BNSS requires regular revision because of the sheer number of sections and the detailed procedural requirements. Create flashcards for important section numbers, timelines, and conditions. Test yourself regularly with mock questions to reinforce your memory.

    • Conclusion

    The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, represents a fundamental shift in India's criminal procedure law. For judiciary and AIBE aspirants, mastering BNSS is not just about memorizing section numbers — it is about understanding the philosophy behind the new law, the changes from the old CrPC, and the practical implications for the criminal justice system. 

    The sections we have covered in this guide — Section 173 (FIR registration), Section 176 (forensic investigation), Section 187 (custody and remand), Section 58 (24-hour rule), Section 356 (trial in absentia), Section 84 (proclamation), Section 105 (search and seizure recording), Section 482 (anticipatory bail), and Section 355 (video conferencing) — are the most important provisions that you need to know inside out for your exams.Remember, BNSS is a high-scoring subject because it is predictable and procedural. If you approach it strategically, focus on thematic clusters, practice comparative questions, and stay updated on judicial interpretations, you can turn BNSS into one of your strongest subjects. 

    The key is consistent revision, active practice, and a deep understanding of the interplay between the new procedural law and constitutional principles like Article 21 and Article 22.So pick up your bare act, start with the clusters we have outlined in this guide, and make BNSS your strength in the journey toward becoming a judicial officer or a licensed advocate. The new criminal laws are here to stay, and the sooner you master them, the better prepared you will be for the challenges ahead.Good luck with your preparation!

    Source Links

    Labels:

    SHARE:

    Twitter Facebook Google Pinterest

    AUTHOR: RABI KR. PANDIT

    author-avatar
    Hello, I am Rabi Kr. Pandit, the founder of this platform and a resident of Kolkata, India. I hold a degree in History, Political Science, and English, and I am currently pursuing my legal studies at Jogesh Chandra Chaudhary Law College under the University of Calcutta. I manage multiple educational blogs with the aim of delivering knowledge in a clear, structured, and accessible manner. My focus is on simplifying complex topics and presenting reliable information that benefits students and readers from diverse academic backgrounds.

    COMMENTS

    Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share to a social network STEP 2: Click the link on your social network Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy Table of Content