Introduction
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) introduced several criminal law provisions that courts are now interpreting in different factual situations. These cases help explain the scope of offences involving online speech, the use of children in criminal activities, suspected petty organised crime and sexual intercourse allegedly obtained through deception.
It is important to distinguish between a court granting bail, quashing an FIR and deciding guilt after trial. A bail order does not establish innocence or guilt, and refusal to quash an FIR does not amount to conviction.
Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh, How Does Section 152 BNS Apply to Online Speech?
In Mohammed Zubair v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on May 22, 2025, the Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to criminal proceedings arising from social media posts concerning controversial religious statements. The FIR initially invoked several BNS provisions, and Section 152 was subsequently added. The allegations included claims that the posts could provoke hostility and disturb public order.
Section 152 BNS criminalises certain acts that purposely or knowingly excite or attempt to excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist activities or endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. It also covers specified acts encouraging such activities through words, signs, electronic communication or other means.
The provision contains an explanation protecting lawful criticism of government measures or administrative action when the criticism does not excite or attempt to excite the prohibited activities.
The case illustrates how Section 152 BNS may arise in cases involving online speech. However, the applicability of the provision depends on the allegations, the statutory ingredients and the court’s assessment of the particular proceedings. The decision must not be treated as a general rule that all controversial or critical online posts constitute an offence under Section 152.
Akhil N.R. v. State of Kerala, Can a Promise of Marriage Attract Section 69 BNS When the Man Is Already Married?
In Akhil N.R. v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court considered an appeal concerning the refusal of anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations under Section 69 BNS and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
According to the prosecution, the accused, who was already married, allegedly had sexual intercourse with a woman employee after promising to divorce his wife and marry her. The complainant also alleged that the accused subsequently threatened and abused her.
The High Court considered whether a promise to marry made by a person who was already married could constitute deceitful means under Section 69 when the complainant knew of the existing marriage. It granted anticipatory bail after examining the circumstances, including the allegations and the timing of the complaint. The Court’s observations were confined to the bail proceedings and did not determine guilt after trial.
Section 69 BNS covers sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without an intention to fulfil it, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The provision does not make every failed relationship or unfulfilled promise a criminal offence. The alleged deception, the intention behind the promise and its connection with the sexual relationship remain important considerations.
The judgment should not be interpreted as establishing that Section 69 can never apply when the accused is married. Its observations must be understood in the context of the specific allegations and the limited question of anticipatory bail.
Sanjesh Guden v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Can Using Children to Sell Illegal Liquor Attract Section 95 BNS?
In Sanjesh Guden v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on March 7, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a regular bail application involving allegations that the accused was attempting to sell illicit liquor through three minor girls.
The prosecution alleged that approximately 100 bulk litres of illicit liquor had been recovered in connection with the incident. The accused faced allegations under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, Sections 75 and 78 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 95 BNS.
Section 95 BNS criminalises hiring, employing, engaging or using a child to commit an offence. The punishment is imprisonment of not less than three years, which may extend to ten years, along with a fine. Where the child commits the offence, the person who engaged the child may also be punished as if that person had committed the offence themselves.
The High Court granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed. It expressly made no comment on the merits of the allegations.
The case illustrates how allegations of using children in criminal activities may engage Section 95 alongside other laws. However, the bail order did not establish that the accused was guilty or finally determine whether every ingredient of Section 95 had been proved.
Abin K.P. v. State of Kerala, Can Possession of Multiple Bank Cards Raise Suspicion of Petty Organised Crime?
In Abin K.P. v. State of Kerala, decided on August 14, 2026, the Kerala High Court considered an anticipatory bail application involving an allegation under Section 112 BNS, which deals with petty organised crime.
According to the prosecution, the accused and two other individuals were found in a car under suspicious circumstances in Malappuram district. The items allegedly recovered included 15 bank passbooks, ten ATM cards, a cheque book, seven SIM cards, five mobile phones and ₹55,000 in cash. The prosecution alleged that these items did not belong to the accused.
The prosecution also stated that accounts associated with the passbooks were linked to complaints concerning cyber fraud in Kerala and four other states. The order recorded that no criminal cases had been registered on the basis of those complaints at that stage.
Section 112 BNS covers specified criminal acts, including theft, snatching, cheating, unauthorised sale of tickets and unauthorised betting or gambling, when committed by a person who is a member of a group or gang.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail after considering the case diary and finding that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The order imposed conditions requiring the accused to cooperate with the investigation and comply with reporting requirements.
The case illustrates how the possession of multiple financial instruments may prompt a cybercrime investigation. However, possession of such items or suspicion of involvement in fraud does not, by itself, prove petty organised crime. The prosecution must establish the ingredients of Section 112, including the required connection with a group or gang and the relevant criminal activity.
Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala, Does an Alleged Promise of Marriage Automatically Attract Section 69 BNS?
In Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala, decided on September 3, 2026, the Kerala High Court considered a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 69 BNS and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant was a married woman with two children, and her husband was alive. The allegations included that the accused had promised to marry her, taken her to a hotel and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. The complaint also referred to allegations concerning intimate photographs.
The High Court examined whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, established the essential ingredients of Section 69. It held that the materials did not establish that the complainant’s consent to the sexual relationship had been induced by a false promise of marriage or other deceitful means. The Court also took note of the settlement between the parties and quashed the FIR and the further proceedings against the accused.
Section 69 BNS criminalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the conduct does not amount to rape. The punishment may extend to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.
The judgment demonstrates that an allegation of a promise to marry does not automatically establish an offence under Section 69. The facts must disclose the required deceitful intention and a connection between the alleged deception and the sexual relationship.
The decision was based on its particular circumstances. It does not establish a general rule that a married complainant can never be protected by Section 69. Nor does it mean that a settlement alone automatically justifies quashing criminal proceedings.
Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, When Does an Alleged False Promise to Marry Require a Trial?
In Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on February 10, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a petition seeking to quash an FIR involving allegations of sexual relations following assurances of marriage.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly established sexual relations with the complainant on several occasions after promising to marry her. The allegations included that he persuaded her to divorce her husband and continued the relationship on that assurance. The complainant further alleged that they later travelled to Gwalior together, but the accused subsequently refused to marry her.
The Court examined Section 69 BNS and the principles governing the quashing of an FIR. It held that the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie offence requiring further examination. The Court refused to quash the FIR because questions concerning the intention behind the promise and whether the complainant’s consent had been obtained through deception required an assessment of evidence.
The decision distinguishes an alleged promise that was dishonest from the beginning from a situation in which a person later changes their mind. The subsequent failure to marry does not, by itself, prove that the original promise was deceptive.
The High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR was not a finding of guilt. The prosecution must still establish the relevant allegations in accordance with law.
Conclusion
These decisions illustrate how courts are applying and interpreting different provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in cases involving online speech, the alleged use of children in criminal activities, suspected petty organised crime and sexual relationships involving allegations of deception.
They also demonstrate why the procedural stage of a case matters. Granting anticipatory bail, quashing an FIR and refusing to quash an FIR are legally different outcomes. None should be inaccurately described as a final finding of guilt or innocence.
