Supreme Court: Accused must be heard before cognizance under BNSS

The case concerns whether the Supreme Court should uphold a lower court's order taking cognizance of an offence and issuing process against the accused, given that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into force after the complaint was filed but before the final order was passed.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Umar and Anr.; Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; Bench: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• The Court held that the order dated 03.06.2026, which found a prima facie case and issued process, constituted the taking of cognizance.
• The Court ruled that under the BNSS, the accused must be heard before cognizance is taken.
• The Court set aside the portion of the 03.06.2026 order finding a prima facie case and taking cognizance, limiting it to a 'summons simplicitor'.
• The appellant-accused was directed to appear before the Court within one month.
• The Court ordered that the matter be heard on the date of appearance or another day if the complainant/counsel is absent, with appropriate orders to be passed.
• The appeal was allowed without observations on the merits.
• Any pending applications were rejected.

Also in the document

• The Court distinguished between the initial acceptance of the complaint and the final application of judicial mind, determining that the latter occurred after the BNSS came into force.
• The Court noted that the matter remained pending for almost two years between the examination of witnesses (06.03.2024) and the final order (03.06.2026).
• The judgment is marked as Non-Reportable.