TL;DR: Two years after the BNS, BNSS and BSA came into force on 1 July 2024, the National Crime Records Bureau has still not published crime data covering any part of the new period, so almost every implementation figure in circulation comes from ministerial statements and parliamentary replies rather than audited statistics. CCTNS now runs in all 17,798 police stations and e-Sakshya in 15,899 of them, while the Ministry of Home Affairs has told Parliament that it does not centrally maintain State forensic laboratory data or e-Sakshya upload counts. Four gaps remain open: forensic and training capacity, the digital divide inside the system, transition complexity in courts running two codes at once, and rights and data protection safeguards.
On this page
- What the official record shows after two years
- The chargesheet compliance numbers and who stated them
- The BNSS statutory clock, section by section
- Training and forensic capacity
- The digital divide inside the system
- Transition complexity in a court running two codes
- Rights and data protection safeguards
- What the courts have settled so far
- What to expect in your own court
- Frequently asked questions
What the official record shows after two years
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. All three are on India Code, which is the only text to cite from when a section number is in dispute. The new criminal laws explainer covers the section mapping. This post is about what the implementation record actually contains.
Start with the fact that shapes everything else. In an answer to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 5086 on 24 March 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the latest published edition of the National Crime Records Bureau’s Crime in India report pertains to 2023. The codes took effect on 1 July 2024, so as of the second anniversary there is no published NCRB dataset covering even one day of the BNS period. Conviction rates, chargesheet rates and disposal rates under the new codes are not available in the form practitioners and researchers normally rely on. Anyone quoting a national conviction rate “under BNS” is quoting something other than NCRB.
What does exist is a set of figures released through the Press Information Bureau and through parliamentary replies. Those are official and attributable. They are also selective, because a minister answering a question chooses which number to give. Three of them recur in every discussion of the new codes.
First, the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems is now live everywhere. In a Press Information Bureau release dated 11 March 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs told the Rajya Sabha that CCTNS was functional in all 17,798 police stations in the country as on 1 February 2026. The same PIB release carried an annexure of digital FIR registration figures: 58,38,031 in 2023, 56,47,911 in 2024 and 58,59,722 in 2025. Registration fell about three per cent in the transition year and recovered about four per cent the year after.
Second, the evidence-capture app is widely deployed but its output is not centrally counted. In a Rajya Sabha reply on 11 February 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that e-Sakshya had been rolled out in 15,899 police stations across 35 States and Union Territories, and that it does not maintain data on recordings uploaded through the app. Only deployment is being measured.
Third, forensic infrastructure is being funded but the ministry does not hold the operational numbers. Answering Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question 1331 on 11 February 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that Rs 233.32 crore had been released for forensic laboratory modernisation in 25 States and Union Territories, and Rs 361.06 crore for mobile forensic vans in 30 States and Union Territories. In the same answer, the ministry said that data relating to State forensic science laboratories is not maintained centrally.
That last sentence is the one to carry into court. The BNSS assumes a functioning forensic system, and the ministry administering the mandate does not hold the data needed to say whether it functions.
The chargesheet compliance numbers and who stated them
The most quoted implementation statistic is the share of cases in which a chargesheet is filed inside the BNSS deadline. The figure has a real source, and the source is a speech.
Speaking at Kurukshetra on 3 October 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said that in the first year of implementation, chargesheets were filed within 60 days in 53 per cent of criminal cases nationally and within 90 days in 65 per cent. He gave Haryana figures of 71 and 83 per cent, and said Haryana’s conviction rate had doubled to 80 per cent. ThePrint and Tribune India reported the figures. They have not been released as a dataset with definitions, denominators or a cut-off date.
The same speech carried the timeline target since repeated widely. Shah said that after 2026, an FIR would on average be disposed of within three years. He restated it at the Bastar civic reception on 20 May 2026, reported by Tribune India, as an aim to dispose of every criminal case up to the Supreme Court within three years, before 2029.
Here is the compliance data as it currently stands, with the source for each row.
| Figure | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Chargesheet within 60 days, all India, first year | 53% | Amit Shah, Kurukshetra, 3 October 2025, reported by ThePrint and Tribune India |
| Chargesheet within 90 days, all India, first year | 65% | Same speech |
| Chargesheet within 60 and 90 days, Haryana, first year | 71% and 83% | Same speech |
| Haryana conviction rate, described as doubled | 80% | Same speech |
| Digital FIRs registered, 2023, 2024, 2025 | 58,38,031, then 56,47,911, then 58,59,722 | MHA, PIB release, 11 March 2026 |
| Police stations with CCTNS, as on 1 February 2026 | 17,798, described as all | MHA, PIB release, 11 March 2026 |
| Police stations with e-Sakshya | 15,899 across 35 States and UTs | MHA, Rajya Sabha reply, 11 February 2026 |
| NCRB Crime in India, latest published edition | Pertains to 2023 | MHA, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 5086, 24 March 2026 |
Two cautions about that table. The chargesheet percentages describe filing, not sufficiency: a chargesheet filed on day 58 that is later returned for want of a sanction order has met the statutory clock and has done nothing for the accused in custody. And the 53 and 65 per cent figures are national averages across offence categories with very different investigation profiles.
The practical use is narrow but real. The national figure implies that in roughly one case in three the 90-day window closes without a chargesheet. That is the population in which the right under Section 187 BNSS default bail becomes live, and the reason the application has to be ready before the deadline rather than after it.
The BNSS statutory clock, section by section
The BNSS writes an unusual number of hard time limits into its text. Rather than repeat an unsourced count of how many there are, here is the set that governs the ordinary progress of a sessions case, each verified against the Gazette text of the Sanhita on India Code.
| Stage | Time limit | Section | Applies to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Signing of an electronically registered FIR | 3 days | Section 173(1)(ii) BNSS | Information given by electronic communication |
| Preliminary enquiry before registration | 14 days | Section 173(3)(i) BNSS | Cognizable offences punishable with 3 years or more but less than 7 years, with prior permission of an officer not below DSP |
| Forensic expert visit and videography of the scene | Notified date, within 5 years, by the State Government | Section 176(3) BNSS | Offences punishable with 7 years or more |
| Detention before default bail accrues | 90 or 60 days | Section 187(3) BNSS | 90 days for offences punishable with death, life or 10 years or more; 60 days for the rest |
| Completion of investigation | 2 months from recording of information | Section 193(2) BNSS | Sections 64 to 68, 70, 71 BNS and Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 POCSO |
| Informing the informant of investigation progress | 90 days | Section 193(3) BNSS | All cases, by any means including electronic |
| Supply of documents to accused and victim | 14 days from production or appearance | Section 230 BNSS | All committal and trial proceedings |
| Committal to the Court of Session | 90 days from cognizance, extendable to 180 days | Section 232 BNSS, proviso | Offences triable exclusively by the Court of Session |
| Application for discharge | 60 days from the date of commitment | Section 250(1) BNSS | Sessions trials |
| Framing of charge | 60 days from the date of first hearing on charge | Section 251(1)(b) BNSS | Sessions trials |
| Application for plea bargaining | 30 days from the date of framing of charge | Section 290(1) BNSS | Offences eligible for plea bargaining |
| Adjournments during trial | Not more than two | Section 346 BNSS, proviso | All trials |
| Trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender | Not before 90 days from framing of charge | Section 356(1) BNSS, proviso | After two warrants 30 days apart and newspaper publication |
| Pronouncement of judgment | Not later than 45 days after termination of trial | Section 392(1) BNSS | Every criminal court of original jurisdiction |
| Release of an undertrial on bail | One-half of the maximum sentence, one-third for a first-time offender | Section 479(1) BNSS | Undertrials, excluding death or life imprisonment offences |
Two entries deserve separate attention because practitioners consistently get them wrong.
Section 392(1) BNSS is the judgment provision, and the number is 45 days from termination of the trial, not 30. The separate 30-day rule in the Sanhita deals with confirmation of a seizure or attachment order under Section 117(2), and the two get conflated. If you are moving for a judgment that has not been delivered, the three-month pronouncement rule line of authority sits alongside Section 392, and you should cite both.
Section 176(3) BNSS is the forensic mandate, and it is not yet in force everywhere. It requires a forensic expert to visit the scene and collect evidence in cases punishable with seven years or more, with videography, but the obligation operates “from such date, as may be notified within a period of five years by the State Government”. A State that has not issued the notification is not bound. If your case turns on the absence of a forensic visit, the first document to obtain is the State notification, or the absence of one.
Here is the ordinary flow of a sessions case against that clock.
flowchart TD
A["FIR registered<br/>e-FIR signed in 3 days<br/>s.173(1)"] --> B["Preliminary enquiry<br/>14 days, 3 to 7 year offences<br/>s.173(3)"]
A --> C["Investigation<br/>60 or 90 days to chargesheet<br/>s.187(3)"]
B --> C
C --> D["Progress reported to informant<br/>90 days<br/>s.193(3)"]
C --> E["Documents supplied<br/>14 days<br/>s.230"]
E --> F["Committal to Sessions<br/>90 days, up to 180<br/>s.232"]
F --> G["Discharge application<br/>60 days from committal<br/>s.250"]
G --> H["Charge framed<br/>60 days from first hearing<br/>s.251"]
H --> I["Plea bargaining application<br/>30 days<br/>s.290"]
H --> J["Trial, not more than two adjournments<br/>s.346"]
J --> K["Judgment<br/>45 days from close of trial<br/>s.392"]The clock is written in mandatory language throughout, and almost none of it carries a stated consequence for breach. Section 187(3) does, because default bail follows automatically. A committal that takes 240 days does not, on the face of the Sanhita, produce a remedy. For most of the clock, the only enforcement mechanism is administrative attention.
Training and forensic capacity
The first named gap is capacity, and it splits into two problems that are usually discussed as one.
On training, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated in a PIB release dated 18 December 2024 that 32,524 investigating officers, prosecutors and medical officers had been trained on the new criminal laws. The same release recorded the forensic base as 7 Central Forensic Science Laboratories, 32 State Forensic Science Laboratories and 97 Regional Forensic Science Laboratories, with the e-Forensics platform connecting 117 laboratories. The Ministry also reported that 3,90,925 officials had completed at least one of the three iGOT Karmayogi courses on the new laws, and 2,34,918 had completed all three, as of 24 October 2024.
Set 32,524 trained investigating officers against 17,798 police stations. That is under two per station nationally, before any allowance for transfers or retirements. The iGOT figures are larger but measure course completion, which is not the same as competence in framing a charge under an unfamiliar numbering scheme.
On forensic staffing, the most detailed published figures predate the new codes. The Forensic Science India Report published by Project 39A at National Law University Delhi on 19 August 2023, produced with the Ministry of Home Affairs and reported by IndiaSpend, found 3,211 sanctioned posts across 26 laboratories with about 40 per cent lying vacant, and roughly two in three of those vacancies were scientific posts rather than administrative ones. The State Forensic Science Laboratory at Lucknow was recorded at 73 per cent vacancy.
Those numbers are three years old, and no newer national figure exists because the Ministry told Parliament on 11 February 2026 that it does not centrally maintain State forensic laboratory data. The same answer disclosed that 154 forensic experts had been engaged on contract across the 7 CFSLs in 2025-26 with a stated aim of zero pendency, and that of the 9 off-campuses of the National Forensic Sciences University and 7 new CFSLs approved, 5 were operating from transit campuses and land had been allotted by only 4 States.
The Home Minister has given a larger picture on the funding side. Speaking on 3 January 2026 in remarks carried by NewsOnAir, the Prasar Bharati news service, Shah said the number of mobile forensic laboratories had gone from zero in 2021 to 1,000, that Rs 30,000 crore was committed over five years, and that every State would have a forensic university or a CFSL by 2029. The National Forensic Sciences University is the vehicle for the training half of that commitment.
What this means for a case is direct. If the laboratory is short of scientists, the report is late, and the late report either delays the chargesheet or produces a chargesheet filed within 60 days without the forensic material that is supposed to support it. Cross-examination on the chain of custody and on the certificate under Section 63 BSA for electronic evidence is where that shortage becomes visible.
The digital divide inside the system
The second named gap is usually described as a problem of citizens without smartphones. Inside the criminal justice system the problem is narrower: the statutory scheme now assumes a working device, network and server at several points where the older code assumed paper.
The BNSS builds electronic process into the ordinary case. Information can be given by electronic communication under Section 173(1), with signature within three days. Section 530 BNSS permits trials, inquiries and proceedings, including the recording of evidence, to be held in electronic mode. Search and seizure under Section 105 requires audio-video recording, and Section 176(3) requires videography of the forensic collection in serious cases.
Each of those requires the device and the upload to work. On the ministry’s own numbers, CCTNS in 17,798 stations against e-Sakshya in 15,899 leaves close to 1,900 police stations without the app that captures the recording the statute contemplates, and because upload counts are not maintained, there is no published basis to say how often the app is used in the stations that have it. Digital FIR registrations in the same PIB release fell from 58,38,031 in 2023 to 56,47,911 in 2024, then recovered to 58,59,722 in 2025, and the release does not attribute that movement to any cause.
For a defence practitioner the missing recording is a fact the prosecution has to explain, but not every omission is fatal, and the Supreme Court has begun to draw the line. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1389, decided on 27 July 2026, a bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ held that the videography requirement attaches to the interrogation and the recovery, not to the transit of the accused between locations, and that Section 38 BNSS gives the accused the right to meet an advocate during interrogation rather than a right to the advocate’s continuous presence throughout.
Running an authority of this kind through a good-law check before you rely on it in a bail argument is the difference between a submission and an embarrassment, and a citator such as Niyam that flags subsequent treatment will surface a later coordinate bench that a plain search will not.
Transition complexity in a court running two codes
The third named gap is the one every trial court is living with, and it is the least discussed in policy commentary because it produces no statistic.
The rule is simple. The offence date governs. An offence committed on or before 30 June 2024 is tried under the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure; an offence committed on or after 1 July 2024 is tried under the BNS and the BNSS. Section 531 BNSS repeals the CrPC and saves pending proceedings, so a case registered before the cut-off continues under the old procedure to its end.
Every sessions court in India is therefore running two complete procedural codes side by side, and will do so for as long as the pre-July 2024 backlog survives. Given the pendency recorded on the National Judicial Data Grid, that is not measured in months. The pendency data on NJDG makes the arithmetic obvious: cases filed in 2018 and 2019 are still at evidence stage in many districts, and each will be decided under the CrPC long after the last IPC FIR has been registered.
Section numbering diverges without pattern. Cheating moves from Section 420 IPC to Section 318 BNS. Criminal breach of trust moves from Section 406 IPC to Section 316 BNS. Murder moves from Section 302 IPC to Section 103 BNS. There is no arithmetic relationship, so a practitioner carrying both codes is doing a lookup on every citation. The same applies on the procedural side, where inherent powers move from Section 482 CrPC to Section 528 BNSS and anticipatory bail moves from Section 438 CrPC to Section 482 BNSS. The number 482 now means two entirely different things depending on which code applies, and that single collision has generated more drafting errors than any other change in the transition.
Precedent has to be translated. Thirty years of authority on Section 41A CrPC notices, on Section 167(2) default bail and on Section 482 quashing was written against the old numbering. The propositions survive, because the BNSS reproduces most of the CrPC scheme, but a judgment on quashing decided in 2019 speaks of Section 482 CrPC, and if your matter is a 2025 offence you are asking the court to apply it to Section 528 BNSS. The reasoning in the FIR quashing line of authority transfers cleanly, and the section reference does not.
Classification questions have to be re-checked. The First Schedule to the BNSS reclassifies some offences, and the practitioner habit of remembering whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable from the old Schedule is now a source of error.
Two codes also means two research trails. Searching for authority now requires the old section number, the new section number, and an awareness that a judgment delivered after July 2024 may still be applying the old code because of the offence date. AI-assisted legal research handles the mapping better than keyword search does, provided the tool reads the judgment text rather than guessing at section equivalents.
Rights and data protection safeguards
The fourth named gap is the one with the least published data and the most future litigation in it.
Three features of the new codes create the exposure. Section 187(3) BNSS permits police custody of 15 days to be sought in parts rather than only in the first 15 days of remand. Section 356 BNSS permits trial in absentia of a proclaimed offender, subject to two warrants issued 30 days apart, newspaper publication and a further 90-day wait from framing of charge. And the system now generates a large volume of personal data: e-Sakshya recordings, videographed searches under Section 105, forensic scene videography under Section 176(3), and CCTNS records across all 17,798 stations.
On custody, the Supreme Court has narrowed the reading. On 8 January 2025, a bench of Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra JJ, in a decision reported by LiveLaw, affirmed a Karnataka High Court view that under Section 187 BNSS the 15 days of police custody must be sought within the first 40 days of the detention period for offences punishable with up to 10 years, not at any point across the full 60.
On undertrial release, Section 479 BNSS is the most immediately usable rights provision in the Sanhita, and it needed judicial intervention to work. On 23 August 2024, a bench of Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta JJ held that it applies retrospectively to all undertrials, including those in cases registered before 1 July 2024, and directed jail superintendents to process applications. On 22 October 2024, as reported by LiveLaw, the Court recorded that only 19 of 36 States and Union Territories had filed the compliance reports called for.
On data protection, the exposure is structural. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 contains exemptions for the State in specified circumstances, and criminal investigation records sit inside them. That does not remove the recordings and the biometric material from the compliance picture, because the same data passes through vendors, cloud storage and analytics tools that are not the State. Practitioners advising institutions on how the DPDP Rules 2025 apply to material sourced from criminal proceedings should treat the exemption as narrower than it first appears, and firms handling case data at scale should read the legal AI data residency position before uploading a brief containing a client’s investigation record to a foreign-hosted service.
The speech offence provisions carry their own safeguards question. Section 152 BNS replaced sedition with an offence framed around acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The developing authority on Section 152 BNS is worth following closely, because the constitutional challenge to its width has not been finally resolved and First Information Reports are being registered in the meantime.
What the courts have settled so far
Two years is a short time for a procedural code, and the settled ground is correspondingly thin. What follows is the position as recorded in the sources named against each entry, and each is a proposition to re-check before relying on it.
| Proposition | Status | ✓ / ✗ | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 479 BNSS applies retrospectively to undertrials in pre-July 2024 cases | Held by the Supreme Court on 23 August 2024, Kohli and Mehta JJ | ✓ | LiveLaw report of the order |
| All States and UTs have complied with the Section 479 reporting directions | Only 19 of 36 had filed reports as on 22 October 2024 | ✗ | LiveLaw report of the order |
| Police custody under Section 187 BNSS may be sought at any time in the 60-day period | Rejected; must be sought within the first 40 days for offences up to 10 years | ✗ | Supreme Court order of 8 January 2025, Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra JJ, reported by LiveLaw |
| Section 38 BNSS gives a right to an advocate’s continuous presence during interrogation, and videography extends to transit | Both rejected; the right is to meet an advocate, and videography attaches to interrogation and recovery | ✗ | State of A.P. v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1389 |
| Section 176(3) BNSS forensic visit obligation is in force in every State | Not established; the section allows the State Government to notify the date within five years | ✗ | Section 176(3) BNSS, text on India Code |
| NCRB has published crime data covering the BNS period | No; the latest published Crime in India pertains to 2023 | ✗ | Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 5086, answered 24 March 2026 |
| CCTNS is functional in every police station | Yes, in all 17,798 as on 1 February 2026 | ✓ | PIB release, 11 March 2026 |
| e-Sakshya is deployed in every police station | No; 15,899 stations across 35 States and UTs | ✗ | Ministry of Home Affairs, Rajya Sabha reply, 11 February 2026 |
| Upload volumes through e-Sakshya are centrally recorded | No; the Ministry states it does not maintain that data | ✗ | Ministry of Home Affairs, Rajya Sabha reply, 11 February 2026 |
| State FSL staffing and performance data is centrally maintained | No; the Ministry states it is not | ✗ | Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question 1331, answered 11 February 2026 |
The pattern is worth stating plainly. The propositions that resolve in favour of the accused have come from the Supreme Court, and the propositions that would tell you whether the system is working have come back as data not maintained. For legislative history on the Sanhita, PRS Legislative Research remains the cleanest source.
What to expect in your own court
Strip out the policy framing and the practical position after two years comes down to a handful of expectations, each tied to something verifiable above.
Expect the chargesheet clock to be met more often than not, and expect that to matter less than it sounds. On the Home Minister’s own figures, 53 per cent of cases saw a chargesheet within 60 days and 65 per cent within 90 in the first year. If your client is in custody, the operative question is whether the case falls in the remaining third. Diarise the 60 or 90 day date from the date of first remand, and have the bail application drafted before the window closes rather than after.
Expect wide variation between States. The gap between the national and Haryana figures in the same speech, 53 against 71 and 65 against 83, is 18 percentage points on both measures. Your district’s number is not the national number, and no published dataset will give it to you, so the only reliable source is your own file history and the case status data on eCourts.
Expect the forensic report to be the bottleneck in serious cases. The mandate under Section 176(3) applies to offences punishable with seven years or more, and the last national vacancy figure available is Project 39A’s 40 per cent from August 2023. In a seven-year-plus offence, the forensic report is more likely to determine the real timeline than the statutory clock is.
Expect Section 479 BNSS to be underused. It gives release at one-half of the maximum sentence, and one-third for a first-time offender, and the Supreme Court had to direct jail superintendents to process the applications. The same underuse pattern appears in the bail jurisprudence under special statutes, where the statutory bar is stricter and the applications are correspondingly fewer.
Expect to check the section number twice on every draft. The 482 collision between CrPC anticipatory bail and BNSS inherent powers is the most common single error, and quashing petitions in matrimonial matters, where the Section 498A misuse line of authority is nearly always cited, now require you to identify which code governs before the first citation goes in.
Expect judgment within 45 days of the close of trial under Section 392(1) BNSS. The mechanics of reading it for appeal are set out in how to read a judgment, and the citation you extract should be the neutral citation, since eSCR and neutral citations are now the standard reference in Supreme Court filings.
Expect the data position to change. The NCRB will eventually publish an edition of Crime in India covering the BNS period, and that will be the first opportunity to test the ministerial claims against a counted dataset. Until it lands, every conviction rate attributed to the new codes rests on a speech, and your job is to say so when the other side cites one. Keeping a verified authority trail across a matter, rather than a folder of screenshots, is what makes that correction possible in the two minutes you get to make it, and Niyam exists for that problem.
Frequently asked questions
When did the BNS, BNSS and BSA come into force?
All three came into force on 1 July 2024. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The authoritative text of each is on India Code. Offences committed before that date continue to be tried under the old codes.
Has the NCRB published crime data under the new criminal laws?
No. In an answer to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 5086 on 24 March 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the latest published Crime in India report pertains to 2023. Since the codes took effect on 1 July 2024, no published NCRB edition covers any part of the BNS period. Any national conviction or chargesheet rate quoted for the new codes comes from a source other than NCRB.
What is the chargesheet compliance rate under the BNSS?
Union Home Minister Amit Shah said at Kurukshetra on 3 October 2025 that in the first year of implementation, chargesheets were filed within 60 days in 53 per cent of criminal cases nationally and within 90 days in 65 per cent. Haryana’s figures were given as 71 and 83 per cent. These were stated in a speech reported by ThePrint and Tribune India, and have not been released as a dataset.
How many police stations have CCTNS and e-Sakshya?
The Ministry of Home Affairs told the Rajya Sabha, in a PIB release dated 11 March 2026, that CCTNS was functional in all 17,798 police stations as on 1 February 2026. In a separate Rajya Sabha reply on 11 February 2026, the Ministry stated that e-Sakshya had been rolled out in 15,899 police stations across 35 States and Union Territories, and that upload counts are not maintained centrally.
Is the forensic expert visit under Section 176(3) BNSS mandatory everywhere?
Not automatically. Section 176(3) BNSS requires a forensic expert to visit the scene and collect evidence in offences punishable with seven years or more, with videography, but it operates from such date as the State Government notifies within a period of five years. If your State has not issued the notification, the obligation has not commenced there. Obtain the notification, or confirm its absence, before building an argument on non-compliance.
What is the judgment deadline under the BNSS?
Section 392(1) BNSS requires judgment in every criminal court of original jurisdiction to be pronounced in open court immediately after the termination of the trial, or at a subsequent time not later than forty-five days. The frequently quoted figure of thirty days extendable to forty-five is not what Section 392 says. The separate thirty-day period in the Sanhita relates to confirmation of a seizure or attachment order.
How long can an accused be detained before default bail accrues?
Section 187(3) BNSS sets 90 days for offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years or more, and 60 days for other offences. Once that period expires without a chargesheet, the accused is entitled to be released on bail on furnishing bail. The application should be prepared before the deadline, because the right is defeated the moment the chargesheet is filed.
Can police custody be sought at any point in the remand period?
No. On 8 January 2025, a bench of Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra JJ affirmed a Karnataka High Court view, reported by LiveLaw, that under Section 187 BNSS the fifteen days of police custody must be sought within the first forty days of the detention period for offences punishable with up to ten years. The BNSS permits custody to be taken in parts, but not across the whole period.
Does Section 479 BNSS apply to cases registered before 1 July 2024?
Yes. On 23 August 2024, a bench of Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta JJ held that Section 479 BNSS applies retrospectively to all undertrials, including those in cases registered before the new codes came into force, and directed jail superintendents to process applications. On 22 October 2024, the Court recorded that only 19 of 36 States and Union Territories had filed the compliance reports it had sought.
What does Section 38 BNSS give an accused during interrogation?
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1389, decided on 27 July 2026, Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta JJ held that Section 38 BNSS confers a right to meet an advocate during interrogation, and not a right to the advocate’s continuous presence throughout. The same decision held that the videography requirement attaches to interrogation and recovery, and not to transit.
Which code applies to an offence committed in June 2024?
The Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The governing date is the date of the offence, not the date of registration, arrest or filing. Section 531 BNSS repeals the CrPC while saving pending proceedings, so a case arising from a pre-July 2024 offence continues under the old procedure through to its conclusion, including appeal.
Why do Section 482 CrPC and Section 482 BNSS mean different things?
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dealt with the inherent powers of the High Court. Under the BNSS, inherent powers moved to Section 528, and Section 482 BNSS is the anticipatory bail provision that corresponds to the old Section 438 CrPC. The number collision is the most frequent drafting error in the transition, so state the code name with every section reference.
What is the current forensic laboratory vacancy position?
There is no current national figure. The Ministry of Home Affairs stated in answer to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question 1331 on 11 February 2026 that State forensic science laboratory data is not maintained centrally. The most recent published national figure is from Project 39A at National Law University Delhi, whose Forensic Science India Report of 19 August 2023 found about 40 per cent of 3,211 sanctioned posts across 26 laboratories vacant.
What is the three-year disposal target?
Speaking at Kurukshetra on 3 October 2025, the Home Minister said that after 2026 an FIR would on average be disposed of within three years. At the Bastar civic reception on 20 May 2026, reported by Tribune India, he restated the aim as disposal of every criminal case up to the Supreme Court within three years, before 2029. Both are stated targets, not measured outcomes, and no published dataset currently tracks progress against them.
How should I check whether a BNSS judgment is still good law?
Take the neutral citation, confirm the bench strength, and check subsequent treatment before you cite it. Two years of BNSS authority means many propositions rest on a single coordinate bench, and a later bench taking a different view is common. A citator that reads the judgment text and flags subsequent treatment, rather than matching keywords, is the practical way to do this before a bail hearing.