The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has indicated that notice to a proposed accused may be necessary in proceedings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), even where such requirement was initially considered unnecessary, and has accordingly deferred further hearing in a matter involving Rahul Gandhi.
The Court was hearing an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging the rejection of an application filed under Sections 173(4) read with 175(3) BNSS. During the course of hearing, both the petitioner appearing in person and the counsel representing the State and Union of India submitted that there was no requirement to issue notice to the proposed accused while deciding such an application.
However, before the judgment could be finalised, the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi took note of a Full Bench decision in Jagannath Verma v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC
OnLine Alld 11859, which held that an order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC is not interlocutory and is amenable to revision under Section 397 CrPC. Crucially, the Full Bench had ruled that in such revision proceedings, the prospective accused is entitled to an opportunity of hearing.
Drawing from this legal position, the Court observed that the present application under Section 528 BNSS may similarly require issuance of notice to the proposed accused before any decision is taken. The Court emphasised the need to hear all parties concerned on this aspect before proceeding further.
Accordingly, the matter has been listed for further hearing, with the Court set to examine whether principles governing revision proceedings under the CrPC would extend to analogous proceedings under the BNSS framework.
Appearances:
Counsel for Applicant(s) : In PersonCounsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I., G.A.
