Particulars as to time, place and person
Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with particulars as to time, place and person. The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 242:
Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.
Section 235, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 212 Particulars as to time, place and person Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 212, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A charge framing order must be a speaking order providing reasons for the decision. When a trial court frames charges without proper reasoning and without adequately establishing the ingredients of the alleged offense, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside such orders and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration with proper application of the law and procedure.
On this section: Charge - The court directed that charges should be re-framed keeping in mind the proper procedure for framing charges as per Section 212 CrPC.
-
R.l.kapoor vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 212, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a higher court reverses an order of discharge passed by a lower court at the charge-framing stage, it must provide detailed reasoning based on a proper consideration of the material on record. The reversal cannot be based on factually incorrect premises or conclusions without supporting reasons. Furthermore, charges must be framed in accordance with the procedural requirements of Sections 212 and 213 CrPC, containing specific particulars for each accused. If these requirements are not met, the revision petition must be remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration on merits with proper opportunity for all parties to be heard.
On this section: Requirements for framing charges; charges must contain particulars of offence and must be clear and specific for each accused
-
Bachu Singh @ Bachhu Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 212, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere co-ownership of a property from which stolen articles are recovered, without evidence of direct involvement or knowledge of the theft, does not constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail to an accused person, particularly when the charge sheet has been filed and the accused has already undergone substantial custody. The court must distinguish between the actual perpetrator of a crime and a property owner whose premises were used by the perpetrator, and bail should be granted based on the strength of evidence against the accused and consideration of custody duration.
On this section: Harboring offenders; the court noted that at best, the allegations against the petitioner might attract this section rather than Section 379 IPC, indicating insufficient evidence for the primary charge
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 235
What have the courts held on Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi (16 Aug 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 212, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Charge - The court directed that charges should be re-framed keeping in mind the proper procedure for framing charges as per Section 212 CrPC. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 235, section 235 BNSS, section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 235 section and 235 bnss in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi (16 Aug 2010).
What should I read with Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 242 (Offences of same kind within year may be charged together), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 212 (Particulars as to time, place and person), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 235 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 235, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.