Introduction:
In Sohanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-52351-2025), the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a significant order reinforcing procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and underscoring the judiciary’s role as the immediate custodian of personal liberty. The case arose from an alleged seizure of a commercial quantity of opium, where the applicant, Sohanlal, asserted that he was illegally picked up from a bus by unidentified men in civil clothes claiming to be police officers and later falsely implicated.
The applicant had been in custody since 29 August 2025. During earlier proceedings, the Court had already granted interim bail, noting serious inconsistencies and prima facie infirmities in the prosecution story, particularly after examining CCTV footage of the bus from which the applicant was allegedly taken away. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur, to personally explain the circumstances of the arrest and seizure.
At the subsequent hearing on 9 December, Justice Subodh Abhyankar focused sharply on the systemic lapses by the police in complying with newly introduced BNSS provisions, especially those mandating audio-video recording of search and seizure operations. Observing that these statutory requirements appeared to have been “conveniently forgotten,” the Court not only made the applicant’s bail absolute but also issued broader directions aimed at institutional accountability, including summoning the Principal Secretary, Home Department, and seeking the State’s views on providing body cameras to police personnel.
Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant:
Counsel for the applicant, Advocate Himanshu Thakur, mounted a strong challenge to the prosecution’s narrative, grounding his submissions in both factual inconsistencies and statutory violations under the BNSS.
First, it was contended that the applicant was illegally detained. According to the defence, while the applicant was travelling on a bus, he was forcibly escorted out by unidentified persons in plain clothes, who neither disclosed their identity nor followed mandatory arrest procedures. This act, it was argued, violated the basic safeguards of personal liberty and due process.
Second, the defence relied heavily on CCTV footage of the bus, which corroborated the applicant’s version and cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s claim regarding the timing and manner of the arrest. The footage indicated that the applicant was taken away much earlier than what was officially recorded, thereby suggesting fabrication or manipulation of records.
Third, the applicant argued that the alleged seizure of opium was procedurally illegal. Under the BNSS, particularly Section 105 (recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means) and Section 185 (search by police officer), the legislature has imposed an obligation on investigating agencies to ensure transparency and accountability. The complete absence of audio-video recording of the search, seizure, and arrest was not a minor irregularity but a substantive illegality that went to the root of the prosecution case.
Fourth, it was submitted that the prosecution’s later attempt to explain discrepancies by calling them “procedural lapses” could not cure violations that directly impacted the applicant’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence stressed that when liberty is at stake, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to systemic failures.
Finally, the applicant urged that this was not merely a case of bail on merits but one where the Court was duty-bound to exercise its inherent and constitutional powers to prevent misuse of authority and to ensure that newly enacted criminal procedure safeguards are meaningfully implemented.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
Appearing for the State, Government Advocate Vishal Singh Panwar, assisted by the Additional Advocate General, sought to defend the police action while attempting to confine the Court’s scrutiny strictly to the issue of bail.
The State maintained that the applicant was found in possession of a commercial quantity of opium, attracting stringent provisions, and that the recovery itself justified continued prosecution. It was argued that minor discrepancies in timing or documentation should not overshadow the seriousness of the offence.
Addressing the inconsistency regarding the timing of the seizure, the Additional Advocate General submitted that the recovery had actually taken place in the morning, but due to procedural lapses, it was incorrectly recorded as an evening recovery. According to the State, this error was unintentional and did not vitiate the seizure itself.
Crucially, the State urged the Court not to expand the scope of bail proceedings. It was contended that issues relating to compliance with BNSS provisions, alleged illegal detention, or broader administrative reforms could be examined at an appropriate stage during trial or in separate proceedings, but not while deciding bail.
The prosecution also attempted to reassure the Court by pointing out that departmental action had already been initiated: the SP, Mandsaur, informed the Court that six police personnel involved in the incident had been suspended with immediate effect, indicating that the State was taking corrective measures.
Court’s Judgment and Observations:
Rejecting the State’s attempt to narrow the scope of scrutiny, the High Court delivered a forceful and principled order that went beyond the individual facts of the case to address systemic accountability.
1. BNSS Provisions Are Mandatory, Not Optional
Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized that Sections 105 and 185 of the BNSS represent a legislative acknowledgment of the need for transparency in police operations. These provisions, introduced for the first time, mandate audio-video recording of search and seizure to prevent abuse of power and false implication.
The Court observed:
“From the aforesaid provisions, which have been introduced for the first time in the B.N.S.S., the legislature has already taken into account the necessity to record the search and seizure through audio-video mode, however, it appears that the aforesaid provisions have been conveniently forgotten by the officers of the State.”
By using the phrase “conveniently forgotten,” the Court signalled that such omissions could not be brushed aside as mere negligence, especially when liberty is at stake.
2. Direction to the Principal Secretary, Home Department
Recognising that the problem was not isolated to one case, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to apprise the Court of the steps taken to implement BNSS provisions across the State. The Court further ordered that the Principal Secretary must appear personally or through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.
This direction reflects the Court’s insistence that statutory reforms must translate into ground-level implementation, rather than remaining on paper.
3. Body Cameras for Police Personnel
In a forward-looking observation, the Court asked the State to inform whether it had considered providing body cameras to police personnel. The Court implicitly linked body cameras with transparency, deterrence against misconduct, and protection for both citizens and honest officers.
4. Bail Proceedings and the Court’s Wider Powers
Responding to the State’s argument that bail proceedings should not be expanded, the Court categorically rejected this contention. Justice Abhyankar held that the High Court is the immediate custodian of life and liberty, and in appropriate cases, it is not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene.
The Court clarified that it can exercise:
Inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the BNSS, and
Plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to ensure that fundamental rights are protected not only in the present case but also in the future.
The Court poignantly observed that if such incidents are ignored or glossed over, the opportunity to correct systemic wrongs is lost forever, leaving the field open for continued abuse until another victim approaches the Court.
5. Bail Made Absolute and Accountability Measures
Considering the serious procedural lapses, the CCTV evidence, and the applicant’s prima facie defence, the Court made the interim bail absolute. At the same time, it took note of the SP’s submission that six police officers had been suspended, indicating that accountability had begun, though the Court’s directions made it clear that further scrutiny would continue.
The matter was listed for 12 January 2026 for compliance and further consideration.