Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Invoking Section 111 BNS; Application Must Be Accompanied By Prima Facie Evidence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that courts must exercise heightened caution before permitting an Investigation Officer to invoke the offence under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Single Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty emphasized that any application or requisition for invoking Section 111 must be accompanied by robust documents and materials that prima facie justify the need for such an invocation. Only after a thorough review of this evidence should the court consider the request, thereby ensuring that the power is exercised judiciously and in accordance with the law.

The Bench criticized the trial court for permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the severe provisions under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNSS, 2023, without a proper examination of evidence, thereby extending the investigation period and curtailing the petitioner’s constitutional right to liberty.

"This Court has noticed that Investigation Officer has filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and the Trial Court without application of mind has allowed the said application. Offence under Section 111 of BNS, 2023, is punishable with life imprisonment, and therefore, statute provides ninety days time to complete the investigation and file a final report," the Court noted.

The Single Bench emphasized that proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act serve as summary proceedings, with the burden of proof resting primarily on the assessee.

Drawing an analogy, it noted that, similarly, in criminal matters under BNSS, the responsibility to prove the actual occurrence of the alleged offence lies with the petitioner. The Court also observed that the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents, and apart from the single allegation that he withdrew Rs. 100,000 using his ATM card—as stated by a driver during interrogation, no substantial evidence was produced to justify the invocation of the stringent provisions under Sections 111(3) and 111(4).

The Single Bench stated, “For the offences for which the FIR has been filed, if the investigation is not completed and a final report is not filed within sixty days, the accused shall be released on bail if he is prepared to furnish it.”

The Court held that the trial court’s mechanical allowance of the Investigation Officer’s application—filed on December 7, 2024—was made without sufficient supporting material. At that time, no arrest had been made for any other accused, and the IO’s requisition appeared premature. It further noted that the extension of the investigation period, by allowing the IO to invoke Section 111 of BNSS, 2023, directly infringed upon the petitioner’s right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench underscored that while the law empowers authorities to seize goods or invoke harsh measures when there is evidence of organized crime or deliberate evasion, such powers must be exercised judiciously and based on concrete evidence. In the absence of genuine material evidence, the burden of proving that the goods or actions fall within the ambit of Section 111 rests on the accused, which the petitioner failed to discharge.

Consequently, the Court granted bail to Avinash on the condition that he execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000, along with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. "The Registrar General of this Court shall ensure that the copy of this order is circulated to all the Presiding Officers of the District Judiciary, for information and compliance," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Avinash v. The State of Karnataka [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KHC:10169]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Vachan Gowda

Respondent: SPP Pushpalatha, HCGP Vinay Mahadevaiah

Click here to read/download the Order