Every pre-July 2024 judgment in criminal procedure cites CrPC sections. Every post-July 2024 proceeding is governed by BNSS. If you are working on a matter that straddles this transition — which is almost every criminal case in India right now — you need to know exactly which section maps to which, and more importantly, what changed.
This is not a simple renumbering. Thirty-seven years of criminal procedure jurisprudence built on specific CrPC provisions is now being applied to a new code. Some provisions are verbatim identical. Others have changed in ways that will alter how your bail applications, remand proceedings, and FIR challenges are argued.
What Changed on July 1, 2024
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with effect from July 1, 2024. The BNSS is Act 46 of 2023.
The transition rule is in Section 531 BNSS: any appeal, application, trial, inquiry, or investigation pending immediately before July 1, 2024 continues under CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. New proceedings filed after July 1, 2024 — including new bail applications, fresh FIR challenges, and new trials — are governed by BNSS, even where the underlying offence occurred before that date.
The practical consequence: a bail application filed on August 1, 2024 for an offence committed in 2022 is argued under BNSS Section 480, not CrPC Section 437. But if you are reading a 2019 High Court judgment on anticipatory bail, every reference in it to CrPC Section 438 maps to BNSS Section 482 — which has materially different provisions.
The Allahabad High Court in Deepu v. State of U.P. (August 2024) established the governing framework: offences committed before July 1, 2024 continue to be charged under the IPC, but investigation and procedure from the date of FIR registration follows BNSS if the FIR was registered after July 1, 2024. For appeals filed after July 1, 2024, BNSS procedural provisions apply regardless of when the trial was conducted.
The 30 Most Important CrPC Sections: What They Map To
Arrest and Detention
CrPC 41 + 41A → BNSS 35 (many-to-one)
Both sections merged into BNSS 35. The notice-first framework from CrPC 41A is retained and strengthened. Critical addition in BNSS 35(7): no arrest without prior DSP permission where the offence is punishable with less than 3 years and the person is infirm or above 60 years of age. No such protection existed in CrPC.
The SC in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (January 2025, 2025 INSC 909) held that BNSS 35 notices must be served physically — WhatsApp and electronic modes are invalid. If your client received a notice by WhatsApp, the arrest that follows is challengeable.
CrPC 46 → BNSS 43
Core arrest mechanics unchanged. The controversial new addition: BNSS 43(3) creates a statutory handcuff power for habitual offenders, repeat offenders, and persons accused of serious offences including organised crime, terrorism, murder, rape, and trafficking. This directly overrides decades of SC anti-handcuffing jurisprudence from Prem Shankar Shukla and D.K. Basu. Constitutional validity is pending before the SC.
CrPC 57 → BNSS 58
The 24-hour production rule is unchanged. BNSS 58 adds "whether having jurisdiction or not" — codifying that the arrested person must be produced before the nearest Magistrate regardless of territorial jurisdiction.
CrPC 167 → BNSS 187 — THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGE
This is the most significant accused-rights change in the entire BNSS. CrPC 167 as interpreted in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141 confined police custody to the first 15 continuous days. BNSS 187(2) legislatively overrules Anupam Kulkarni: police custody of up to 15 days can now be sought "in parts at any time" within the first 40 days (60-day cases) or 60 days (90-day cases).
This means an accused who has completed the initial 15-day police custody period is not "safe" from further police interrogation. Police can return on day 30 and seek 5 more days, then again on day 55. The default bail timelines (60/90 days) are unchanged, but the window for police access to the accused is dramatically wider.
Track actual custody days carefully in every remand matter. The Delhi HC held that time spent on interim bail does not count as custody for BNSS 187(2) purposes — only actual detention days count. The Bombay HC held that a Magistrate's mere "seen" endorsement is insufficient to extend judicial remand; a speaking, reasoned order is required.
FIR and Investigation
CrPC 154 → BNSS 173
Four landmark changes. First: Zero FIR is now statutory — FIR can be registered "irrespective of the area where the offence is committed." Second: E-FIR is now expressly permitted; the informant must sign within 3 days. Third: Preliminary enquiry (up to 14 days, with DSP approval) is now permitted for offences punishable with 3 to 7 years — this partially overrides Lalita Kumari's mandatory FIR registration rule. Fourth: FIR copy must now go to the victim free of cost, not just the informant.
The SC in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (March 2025, 2025 INSC 410) held that the 14-day preliminary enquiry is a narrow exception — Lalita Kumari remains the general rule.
CrPC 173 → BNSS 193
The 90-day cap on further investigation after chargesheet filing is the critical reform here. Under CrPC 173(8), agencies could file a truncated chargesheet and keep investigating indefinitely. BNSS 193(9) proviso caps further investigation at 90 days, extendable only with court permission. If the 90-day cap is breached without court permission, apply for discharge.
Additional changes: digital chargesheet filing now permitted; mandatory chain-of-custody documentation for electronic devices; 90-day obligation on police to update victim on investigation progress; chargesheet copies to both accused (14 days) and victim's advocate.
Confessions and Statements
CrPC 164 → BNSS 183
Two significant changes. First: confessions and statements may now be recorded through audio-video electronic means in the presence of the accused's advocate — this is a transparency safeguard, though it is permissive ("may"), not mandatory. Second: jurisdictional narrowing — only the Magistrate of the district in which the FIR was registered can record confessions. Under CrPC, any Judicial Magistrate anywhere could record confessions. This creates complications in Zero FIR cases.
For sexual offence and acid attack victims: statements must be recorded by a female Magistrate where possible.
Cognizance, Trial, and Summons
CrPC 190 → BNSS 210 + 223
The related BNSS 223(1) proviso introduces a mandatory pre-cognizance hearing for the accused in complaint cases — an entirely new right. The SC in Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025 INSC 760) confirmed this applies even to PMLA complaints filed after July 1, 2024. Apply for this hearing in every complaint case.
CrPC 197 → BNSS 218
Deemed sanction after 120 days is the landmark addition. Government inaction on a sanction request for prosecution of a public servant now results in automatic deemed sanction. The SC in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. (2024) confirmed the deemed sanction concept is unique to BNSS and operates automatically.
CrPC 204 → BNSS 227
New requirement: no summons or warrant can be issued until prosecution files a list of prosecution witnesses. Challenge process issued without this list as procedurally defective.
CrPC 309 → BNSS 346
The adjournment landscape has completely changed. Maximum 2 adjournments per matter, with written reasons required. An advocate's engagement in another court is expressly not a ground for adjournment. For sexual offences, trial must complete within 2 months of chargesheet. Judgment must be pronounced within 45 days and uploaded online within 7 days.
CrPC 313 → BNSS 351
New BNSS 351(5): the accused may file a written statement in lieu of oral examination when personal attendance is dispensed with. The Kerala HC confirmed permanently exempted accused can answer through written statement or video linkage.
CrPC 317 → BNSS 355 + 356 (one-to-many)
BNSS 355 retains the dispensation-of-attendance provisions and adds virtual attendance via audio-video. BNSS 356 is entirely new — it mandates compulsory trial in absentia for proclaimed offenders in 10+ year/life/death offences after 90 days from charge framing. No appeal is permitted until the offender surrenders; appeal is barred entirely after 3 years from judgment. Constitutional validity of BNSS 356 is contested on fair trial grounds.
Bail
CrPC 437 → BNSS 480
One change: the bail exception for young persons now covers "a child" (under 18 per JJ Act) rather than persons "under sixteen years of age." The 60-day mandatory bail for Magistrate trials (BNSS 480(6)) is retained.
The related BNSS 479 (equivalent of CrPC 436A) is significantly improved: first-time offenders are now released on bond after serving one-third (not one-half) of the maximum sentence. The SC in Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (August 2024) held BNSS 479 applies retrospectively to all undertrials.
CrPC 438 → BNSS 482 — THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACCUSED-RIGHTS EXPANSION
This is where BNSS is most dramatically pro-accused. The 2005 enumerated factors courts must consider before granting anticipatory bail are deleted. The proviso allowing police to arrest the applicant while the application was pending is deleted. The 7-day PP notice and mandatory presence of applicant at final hearing are deleted. All state amendments restricting anticipatory bail — most consequentially, UP's bar on anticipatory bail for death/life imprisonment offences — are overridden.
The Allahabad HC in Abdul Hameed v. State of U.P. (July 2025) held that BNSS 482 applies retrospectively and that the UP amendment bar is removed — anticipatory bail is now available for murder and serious offences in UP. If you have clients who were previously barred from anticipatory bail by state amendments, file fresh applications under BNSS 482.
CrPC 439 → BNSS 483
Near-identical. The rape offence cross-references are updated to BNS sections, and the victim age threshold for mandatory presence at bail hearing is raised from 16 to 18.
Property and Miscellaneous
CrPC 451 → BNSS 497
The court must now prepare a property statement within 14 days, take photographs or video using mobile phones, and may order disposal within 30 days after documentation. The photographs are admissible as evidence in lieu of the original property.
CrPC 482 → BNSS 528
Verbatim identical. All CrPC 482 jurisprudence — including Bhajan Lal guidelines — applies with full force. The SC confirmed that BNSS 528 allows quashing at the nascent investigation stage and that proceedings can be quashed when reliable material disproves allegations.
CrPC 483 → BNSS 529
HC superintendence expanded from Courts of Judicial Magistrates only to include Courts of Session. This is a practical improvement — HC supervision over Sessions Courts no longer requires an Article 227 petition for delay-related matters.
Quick Reference Mapping Table
| CrPC Section | Subject | BNSS Section | Change Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | Arrest without warrant | 35(1)–(2) | Significant — merged with 41A |
| 41A | Notice of appearance | 35(3)–(6) | Significant — merged into §35 |
| 46 | How arrest is made | 43 | Significant — handcuff power added |
| 57 | 24-hour production | 58 | Minor |
| 154 | FIR registration | 173 | Significant — Zero FIR, E-FIR, prelim enquiry |
| 155 | Non-cognizable cases | 174 | Minor |
| 156 | Police power to investigate | 175 | Significant |
| 161 | Witness examination by police | 180 | Significant — AV recording, woman officer |
| 162 | Statements to police | 181 | Identical |
| 164 | Recording confessions | 183 | Significant — AV, jurisdictional narrowing |
| 167 | Remand / Default bail | 187 | Structural — staggered police custody |
| 173 | Chargesheet | 193 | Significant — 90-day cap on further investigation |
| 190 | Cognizance | 210 (+223) | Significant — pre-cognizance accused hearing |
| 197 | Sanction for public servants | 218 | Significant — deemed sanction at 120 days |
| 204 | Issue of process | 227 | Significant — witness list required |
| 227 | Discharge (Sessions) | 250 | Significant — 60-day time limit |
| 228 | Framing of charge | 251 | Significant — 60-day limit, virtual charge |
| 309 | Adjournments | 346 | Significant — 2 adjournment cap |
| 311 | Summoning material witness | 348 | Identical |
| 313 | Examination of accused | 351 | Significant — written statement option |
| 317 | Trial in absence | 355 + 356 | Structural — §356 is entirely new |
| 374 | Appeals from conviction | 415 | Identical |
| 397 | Revision — calling records | 438 | Identical |
| 401 | HC revision powers | 442 | Identical |
| 437 | Bail — non-bailable (Magistrate) | 480 | Minor — child threshold |
| 438 | Anticipatory bail | 482 | Structural — state amendments overridden |
| 439 | Special bail powers (HC/Sessions) | 483 | Minor |
| 451 | Property custody | 497 | Significant — timelines, documentation |
| 482 | Inherent powers of HC | 528 | Identical |
| 483 | HC superintendence | 529 | Significant — extended to Sessions Courts |
How to Handle Pre-2024 Judgments That Cite CrPC Sections
When you are reading a pre-July 2024 judgment and it cites CrPC sections, the practical question is whether the case law built on those provisions still applies.
Rule 1: If the BNSS provision is verbatim identical (CrPC 162 → BNSS 181, CrPC 311 → BNSS 348, CrPC 482 → BNSS 528), the case law applies without qualification. Cite the old cases with confidence.
Rule 2: If the BNSS provision has a substantive change, the case law applies to the extent the provision is unchanged — but the delta matters. For CrPC 167, Anupam Kulkarni on the 15-day police custody rule is legislatively overruled by BNSS 187(2). But the case law on default bail entitlement remaining indefeasible under Article 21 continues to apply.
Rule 3: For anticipatory bail, the CrPC 438 case law built around state amendments (the UP bar, the mandatory notice to PP) is inapplicable under BNSS 482 because those restrictions are deleted. When opposing counsel cites old cases on anticipatory bail limitations, point this out.
Rule 4: For proceedings pending before July 1, 2024, cite the CrPC provision. For new proceedings after July 1, 2024, cite BNSS even for pre-July offences.
Applying these rules to a common scenario: Your client was arrested in March 2024, the trial commenced in October 2024. In the October 2024 bail hearing, you cite the ratio from Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 on the obligation to give reasons for arrest. That ratio was decided under CrPC 41 and CrPC 41A — but it directly maps to BNSS 35, which is where the same obligation now lives. You can cite the case; note the BNSS equivalent in your submissions.
Research smarter, not harder
Get structured analysis of any judgment in under 45 seconds. No more manual briefing.
The New Timelines You Must Know
BNSS introduced 14 statutory timelines that did not exist under CrPC. These are now mandatory — courts are beginning to enforce them.
3 days — E-FIR signature deadline after electronic FIR submission (BNSS 173(1)).
14 days — Maximum duration of preliminary enquiry before mandatory FIR registration for 3–7 year offences (BNSS 173(3)).
14 days — Property statement preparation after seizure (BNSS 497).
14 days — Chargesheet copies to accused after production or appearance (connected to BNSS 230).
30 days — Property disposal after documentation (BNSS 497).
60 days — Discharge application from committal date (BNSS 250(1)).
60 days — Charge framing from first hearing on charge (BNSS 251(1)(b)).
2 months — Trial completion for sexual offences from chargesheet (BNSS 346(1) proviso).
90 days — Cap on further investigation after chargesheet filing (BNSS 193(9) proviso).
90 days — Victim progress update obligation on police (BNSS 193(3)(ii)).
90 days — Wait period for trial in absentia after charges for proclaimed offenders (BNSS 356(4)).
120 days — Deemed sanction for prosecution of public servants (BNSS 218(1) proviso).
45 days — Judgment pronouncement after conclusion of arguments (BNSS 392(1)).
Max 2 — Adjournments per matter (BNSS 346(2)(b)).
The CrPC-to-BNSS transition is the most significant change in Indian criminal procedure since 1973. The three sections that require the most careful attention in practice are: BNSS 187 (staggered police custody overruling Anupam Kulkarni), BNSS 173 (FIR registration with the new preliminary enquiry exception), and BNSS 482 (anticipatory bail with state amendments overridden). For all other sections, check the table above, verify whether the change is substantive or cosmetic, and calibrate your reliance on pre-July 2024 case law accordingly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CrPC still apply after July 1, 2024?
For proceedings that were pending immediately before July 1, 2024, CrPC continues to apply per Section 531(2)(a) BNSS. For new proceedings initiated after July 1, 2024 — including bail applications, FIR challenges, and trials — BNSS applies, even where the underlying offence occurred before July 1, 2024.
Which court governs the transition — old law or new law?
The rule that has emerged from multiple High Courts: the law applicable on the date of the relevant proceeding governs. Appeal filed before July 1 — CrPC. Appeal filed after July 1 — BNSS. New bail application filed after July 1 for a pre-July offence — BNSS.
Is Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar still good law under BNSS?
Yes. The Arnesh Kumar guidelines on arrest procedure were built around CrPC 41 and 41A, which map to BNSS 35. The principles — written reasons for arrest, independent magistrate application of mind before remand — are preserved and strengthened in BNSS 35. Cite Arnesh Kumar; note the BNSS 35 equivalent.
Does the Anupam Kulkarni rule on police custody still apply?
No — it has been legislatively overruled by BNSS 187(2). Under the old rule, police custody was confined to the first 15 continuous days. Under BNSS 187(2), police custody can be sought in parts throughout the investigation period. This is the single most rights-restrictive change in the entire BNSS.
How do I cite a CrPC case in an BNSS-era proceeding?
Cite the case normally with its CrPC section reference, then note the BNSS equivalent. Format: "In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court held [ratio] under the framework of CrPC Section 41A, the equivalent of which is BNSS Section 35." Courts are used to this transition notation.
Is anticipatory bail now available in UP for murder cases?
Yes, under BNSS 482. The Allahabad HC in Abdul Hameed v. State of U.P. (July 2025) held that the BNSS deliberately removed the bar that existed under CrPC 438(6) as applied through state amendments. Anticipatory bail applications for murder, robbery, and other previously-barred offences should now be filed under BNSS 482.
What is the 60-day/90-day threshold for default bail under BNSS 187?
The default bail threshold is 60 days for offences where the maximum punishment is less than 10 years, and 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of 10 years or more. The Karnataka HC in State of Karnataka v. Kalandar Shafi (2024), confirmed by the SC dismissing the SLP, held that "10 years or more" means offences where the maximum sentence is 10 years or more — putting offences with a maximum of "up to 10 years" in the 60-day category.