Power to require attendance of prisoners
Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with power to require attendance of prisoners. Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Criminal Court,--- (a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or proceeding under this Sanhita, it appears to a Criminal Court,---
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him; or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or for giving evidence.
(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order.
Section 302, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 267 Power to require attendance of prisoners 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 267, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.
On this section: Section 267 deals with production of persons in custody before courts. Section 269 is an adjunct to Section 267 and provides exceptions when prison officers may abstain from carrying out court orders for production.
-
Md.shahabuddin vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 267, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Denial of production of an accused in a case for the limited purpose of remand, subject to genuine contingencies under Section 269 Cr.P.C., amounts to denial of both the right to seek bail and the benefits of rights enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code. An accused has an equal right to be tried speedily in all cases in which he is an accused. Section 269 Cr.P.C. does not provide unfettered power to abstain from executing production warrants; it applies only to genuine contingencies such as sickness, infirmity, or genuine time constraints. Where intervening days exist between court dates, jail authorities must facilitate production for limited remand purposes. The court must balance the right to speedy trial in one case with the right to be produced in another case, and indefinite denial of production warrants for extended periods is not justified under Section 269 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Provides for issuance of production warrants by courts; cited as the basis for the Muzaffarpur court's authority to issue production warrants
-
O.p. Mishra vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 267, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prison superintendent cannot be held liable for non-production of an under-trial prisoner when the prisoner is detained in another state's jail by judicial order of a competent court. The duty to produce a prisoner under Sections 267 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to prisoners within the superintendent's custody and control. When a prisoner is detained outside the superintendent's jurisdiction by judicial order, the superintendent is not guilty of non-compliance or dereliction of duty, and the court must appreciate the circumstances that make compliance impossible.
On this section: Power to require attendance of prisoners - The court has power to order the prison officer to produce a person confined in prison for answering charges or for examination as witness. The court applied this section to establish that while courts have the power to issue production orders, the prison officer's duty is limited to producing prisoners within their custody.
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 302
What have the courts held on Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 267, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Section 267 deals with production of persons in custody before courts. Section 269 is an adjunct to Section 267 and provides exceptions when prison officers may abstain from carrying out court orders for production. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2002 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 302 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 302, section 302 BNSS, section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 302(2). 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 Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 267 (Power to require attendance of prisoners), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 302 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 302, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.