When accused shall be discharged
Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with when accused shall be discharged. The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of supply of copies of documents under section 230. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of supply of copies of documents under section 230.
(2) If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 193 and making such examination, if any, of the accused, either physically or through audio-video electronic means, as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
Section 262, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 239 When accused shall be discharged Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2021-05-07 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 472/2021. Surya Kant. Magistrate warrant-case discharge under s.239 is not an interlocutory order; High Court revision under s.397 lies. The trial court is not a post office at the charge stage (Prafulla Kumar Samal on 227 by analogy). Do not map as 227 — that teaching file is Suresh Rajan.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 239 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The warrant-case discharge / not-a-post-office standard carries to BNSS 262.
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to be applied is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, not whether ground for conviction has been made out. Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. The submissions made by the accused on merits and probable defence are not required to be considered at this stage. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding vitiation of trial when complainant and investigating officer are the same applies prospectively only, as held in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and does not apply to cases where criminal prosecution was initiated prior to the Mohan Lal decision.
On this section: Discharge in warrant cases instituted on police report - the Magistrate can discharge when charge is considered groundless
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Application for discharge - under which respondents sought discharge; court must apply judicial mind to material and documents on record
-
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant holds multiple offices and is accused of abuse of one office, sanction for prosecution is mandatory only from the authority competent to remove him from that specific office which he is alleged to have misused. If the public servant has relinquished the office allegedly abused before charge sheet is filed, no sanction is required at all, despite his continuing to hold other public offices. The requirement of sanction serves to prevent frivolous prosecutions of the specific office abused; once that office is relinquished, the protection becomes inapplicable. To require sanction from authorities controlling other unrelated offices held simultaneously would pervert the legislative intent and convert the sanction requirement into a rogue's charter enabling evasion of prosecution.
On this section: Section under which Acharya filed petition for discharge arguing sanction was not obtained, petition dismissed by Special Judge
-
K. Neelaveni vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a charge sheet at the pre-cognizance stage or before the Magistrate has examined the charge sheet and exercised discretion under Section 239 CrPC. At the stage of considering an application for quashing a charge sheet, the allegations made in the FIR and materials collected during investigation must be accepted as true, and if they prima facie constitute the ingredients of an offence, the charge sheet should not be quashed. The truthfulness or otherwise of allegations is a matter of trial. For warrant cases triable by a Magistrate, the High Court should allow the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure their full play and should not interfere prematurely.
On this section: Discharge of Accused - Magistrate has discretion to discharge accused if charge is groundless after considering police report and examining accused and hearing both sides
-
K. Neelaveni vs State Rep. by Insp. of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court should not exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a charge sheet at a premature stage, before the Magistrate has considered the charge sheet and exercised his discretion under Sections 190 and 239 of the CrPC. At the stage of considering a quashing petition, the allegations in the FIR and materials collected during investigation must be taken as prima facie true if they appear to constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence. The truthfulness of allegations and procedural aspects such as whether essential ceremonies were performed in a marriage are matters to be decided at the trial stage, not at the charge sheet stage. Therefore, the High Court erred in quashing charges under Sections 406 and 494 of the IPC and should have allowed the matter to proceed before the Magistrate for his examination and decision in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On this section: Discharge of accused by Magistrate - After examining police report and documents, giving opportunity to prosecution and accused to be heard, Magistrate can discharge accused if charge is deemed groundless; accused should not approach High Court before Magistrate exercises this discretion
-
Rashida Kamaluddin Syed vs Shaikh Saheblal Maradn (d) Th. Lrs.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Upon the death of a complainant in a criminal case, the proceedings do not abate. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not expressly provide for abatement of inquiries and trials upon death of a complainant. Legal heirs of a deceased complainant can be validly permitted by the court to continue the criminal prosecution against the accused under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 495 of the old Code). This principle applies to all criminal cases based on the scheme of the Code and is not limited to cases triable by the Court of Session or cases involving any particular level of offence. Once such permission is granted by the court and is not challenged by the accused, it attains finality and cannot be subsequently challenged as illegal or unlawful.
On this section: Discharge of accused when no prima facie case made out - Applied to the accused's application for discharge which was rejected
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Charge framing by sessions court - establishes legal framework for evaluation of evidence at charge framing stage
-
Jagdish Chandra vs C.b.i.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Hard discs on which intercepted telephone conversations have been recorded are electronic records and therefore documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) read with Section 207(v) CrPC. The prosecution is obliged to furnish to the accused copies of only such documents that it proposes to rely upon as indicated in the charge sheet or of those already sent to the court during investigation. At the pre-charge stage, the trial court cannot direct the prosecution to furnish copies of documents other than those which it proposes to rely upon. However, where the charge sheet indicates that the prosecution is relying upon certain documents, the accused must be given access to those documents. In the instant case, the scope of the APFSL examination was to certify that the hard discs were properly functioning and that the calls copied on to the CDs were true copies of the original recordings in the hard discs. Only to this extent can it be said that the hard discs are being relied upon by the prosecution. The certification in terms of Section 65B(4) EA does not obviate the statutory requirement under Section 207(v) of providing to the accused access to the original recording of the relevant intercepted telephone conversation as a relied upon document. Therefore, the accused should be permitted to listen to the original recordings of the relevant intercepted telephonic conversations relied upon by the prosecution by having the said original recordings played directly from the hard discs in the presence of the accused or their representatives, their counsel and the learned Judge.
On this section: Accused's right to be examined at pre-charge stage
-
Adi Malik vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A magistrate cannot record a plea of guilt and convict an accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. without first complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., which require the magistrate to consider the police report and material and form an opinion that charges should be framed. Failure to comply with these provisions, particularly when coupled with the absence of legal representation for the accused, constitutes a failure of justice that cannot be cured under Section 464 Cr.P.C., and necessitates quashing of the conviction and remittal for fresh proceedings.
On this section: Magistrate's duty to consider police report and documents and discharge accused if charge is groundless - not complied with in this case
-
M.k.prasad vs Dy.s.p.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An acquittal or discharge made by a court lacking competent jurisdiction due to absence of valid sanction for prosecution does not constitute a bar under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code against subsequent prosecution for the same offence after obtaining proper sanction. The first trial is null and void as the court was incompetent to take cognizance and record a valid verdict. Therefore, one of the essential conditions for invoking the bar under Section 300 CrPC (requisite jurisdiction of the court) is lacking, and the accused can be prosecuted afresh after obtaining proper sanction from the competent authority.
On this section: Basis for filing the criminal miscellaneous petition challenging maintainability of prosecution
-
Sumathi Ravichandran vs The Inspector of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Sanction files containing confidential communications between government departments and authorities are privileged documents under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. An accused person does not have the right to peruse such privileged sanction files, even for purposes of mounting an effective defense. However, the trial court may examine the sanction file to satisfy itself that the sanctioning authority applied its mind to the facts placed before it. This approach balances the accused's right to fair trial with the state's legitimate interest in protecting confidential government communications relating to affairs of state.
On this section: Discharge of accused; petitioner had previously filed petition under this section which was dismissed
-
State of Maha vs Suresh Dhanorkar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When material witnesses are untraceable after decades and the prosecution fails to produce substantive evidence, the charge is considered 'groundless' under Section 239 CrPC.
On this section: Applied to discharge the accused as the charges were deemed groundless in the absence of evidence.
-
Diya Chandrayudu vs State of A.p
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision case is filed against concurrent findings of two courts below (trial court and appellate court), the High Court will not interfere unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In cases involving recovery of stolen property with consistent witness testimony and proper identification by the victims, the conviction under Section 411 IPC is sustainable even if the test identification parade is conducted by a non-specialized officer like an Assistant Panchayat Secretary, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated by multiple witnesses. The credibility of witnesses, particularly mediators and investigating officers, should be assessed based on their testimony, demeanor, and whether they have any motive to falsely support the prosecution.
On this section: Examination of accused - the accused were examined under this section and denied the charges.
-
Dr.vikram Khatri vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Metropolitan Magistrate does not commit an error in hearing applications under Section 188 Cr.P.C. read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. together with arguments on charge, as the factual and legal matrix required for deciding both issues substantially overlaps. However, if the Magistrate concludes that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and has not been obtained, the trial cannot proceed. The High Court will not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with such a procedural order merely because the petitioner contends it causes prejudice, absent a clear showing of abuse of process or violation of natural justice.
On this section: Read together with Section 188 Cr.P.C. regarding procedural requirements for offences with extraterritorial elements
-
Madanlal Khandelwal vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 239, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person who has been in judicial custody for an extended period (2.5 months in this case), whose investigation has been completed as evidenced by the filing of supplementary charge sheets, who is no longer required for custodial interrogation, who has no criminal antecedents, and who has co-accused persons granted bail by the same court, is entitled to bail despite being charged with serious offences, provided appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure his appearance in trial and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
On this section: Cited in relation to the petitioner's application for discharge, which was dismissed by the trial court.
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 262
What have the courts held on Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (07 May 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 239, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 239 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9). The warrant-case discharge / not-a-post-office standard carries to BNSS 262. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 262 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 262, section 262 BNSS, section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 262 in crpc and bnss 262 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (07 May 2021).
What should I read with Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 193 (Report of police officer on completion of investigation), section 230 (Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 239 (When accused shall be discharged), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called discharge, and cited as BNSS 262, 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.