GOKUL SUDARSANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short yet interesting question arising for consideration is whether the 2nd proviso to Sec. 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) prohibits the committal court from considering interlocutory applications filed before it. The facts, in brief, are as under; The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1806 of 2024 registered at the Punalur Police Station, now pending as C.P.No.21 of 2025 before the JFCM-II, Punalur. His application for renewal of passport is not being considered by the learned Magistrate in view of Sec. 232 of BNSS.

(2.) Heard, Adv.Nidhin Raj Vettikkadan for the petitioner, Adv.Ajith Murali, the Public Prosecutor, Adv.O.M.Shalina, the DSGI and Dr.B. Kalam Pasha, who, on request, assisted the court.

(3.) In order to answer the question involved, it is essential to understand the difference between Sec. 232 of BNSS and Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C, the corresponding provision in the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The aforementioned provisions are extracted hereunder for convenience;