🚨 A Citizen’s Challenge to the New Law: Analyzing Allegations of Illegal Detention and Police Misconduct under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

Introduction: The Core of the Grievance

The recent enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaces the long-standing Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), was intended to modernize India’s criminal justice system. However, the details emerging from two linked public grievances (Registration Nos. GOVUP/E/2025/0008765 and GOVUP/E/2025/0005549) filed by Mahima Maurya with the Government of Uttar Pradesh, raise serious questions about the initial implementation, particularly regarding the use of preventive arrest powers and the recording of non-cognizable reports (NCRs).

The petitioner, Mahima Maurya, alleges that her husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, and her younger brother, Mithilesh Maurya, were subjected to illegal detention and harassment by the police in Mirzapur on September 14, 2024. The grievances highlight several discrepancies in police records, the alleged misapplication of BNSS sections, and a failure by the authorities to provide requested information, pointing towards a possible misuse of authority.

---

⚖️ Grievance 1: GOVUP/E/2025/0008765 – The Question of Preventive Arrest and Bail

Date of Receipt: 26/01/2025 Current Status: Under Process

The Claim of Illegal Arrest

The primary focus of this grievance is the preventive arrest of the petitioner’s younger brother, Mithilesh Maurya (aged 28, a resident of Prayagraj), under Sections 170/126/135 of the BNSS.

• Section 170 of BNSS is the successor to Section 151 of the old Cr.P.C., which empowers a police officer to arrest an individual without a warrant if they have “knowledge of a design to commit a cognizable offence” and deem the arrest necessary to prevent the crime.
• The police allegedly justified the arrest by stating, “If they had not been arrested, an unpleasant incident would surely have occurred.”

The petitioner immediately contests the premise of the arrest, citing evidence that her husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, was arrested on the same date and subsequently granted bail by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar on the same day. This swift bail, she argues, undermines the police’s “credibility and its report,” suggesting the arrest was unjustified or part of a concocted story.

The RTI Act and Information Denial

A key part of this grievance is the police’s refusal to provide a copy of any complaint registered by the police on the information seeker’s (Mahima Maurya’s) complaint. The police response was simply: “नही” (No), as documented on the 5th page of her attached PDF.

The petitioner demands: “Please provide the reason for not providing the copy as required under subsection 1 (d) of section 4 of RTI Act 2005.”

This is a critical legal challenge. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, mandates every public authority to “publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public,” and by extension, justifies the denial of information in the context of the requested document. The failure to provide a statutory reason for the denial is a clear administrative lapse.

Allegations of Document Manipulation

Mahima Maurya further alleges manipulation in the police records:

1. NCR No – 104/2024 Date: 14/09/2024 does not contain her name, despite the police later confirming an NCR was registered based on her application.
2. The medical examination report copy, which does mention her name, initially listed the sections as “nil,” which was then allegedly manipulated to include the sections from the NCR related to Manoj Kumar Kushwaha.

The gravity of this accusation cannot be overstated. Submitting a “forged copy” to a court, as the petitioner fears she would be doing, is a criminal offense, underscoring her concern about the official documentation.

---

🔎 Grievance 2: GOVUP/E/2025/0005549 – Misapplied BNSS Sections and Contradictions

Date of Receipt: 17/01/2025 Current Status: Case Closed (Disposed of at the subordinate officer level) Result: Dissatisfied (“Harassment by official”)

The Contradictory Arrest Narrative

This grievance delves deeper into the arrest of Mithilesh Maurya and the police narrative. The police report confirms:

• Mithilesh Maurya and the “second party,” Manoj Kumar Kushwaha (brother of the petitioner’s husband), were presented before the court for “maintaining peace” under Section 126/135 BNSS (equivalent to Section 107/116/151 Cr.P.C.).
• The police state that the parties had a physical altercation due to a longstanding dispute.
• An NCR (No. 104/2024) was registered based on the petitioner Mahima Maurya’s application against the opponents under Section 115(2) and Section 352 BNSS.

The petitioner immediately highlights severe contradictions:

1. Arrest Justification: The police stated Mithilesh Maurya was arrested under Section 170 BNSS for “designing to commit a cognizable offence” (Grievance 1), but the report in Grievance 2 states he was presented before the court under Section 126/135 BNSS for “maintaining peace.” The two justifications for arrest are distinct and statutory.
2. Jurisdictional Issue: How could Mithilesh Maurya, a resident of Prayagraj, be “designed to commit a cognizable offence” in Mirzapur in a matter stemming from a family dispute? This questions the very basis of the preventive arrest under BNSS Section 170 (Cr.P.C. Section 151).

Alleged Misapplication of BNSS Sections for NCR

The most technical and alarming point of the second grievance is the allegation that the police registered the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under sections of the new BNSS that are intended solely for court proceedings, not for police registration of a complaint:

• BNSS Section 115 (Assistance in relation to orders of attachment or forfeiture of property): This provision is clearly about execution of court orders, not police investigation of minor disputes.
• BNSS Section 352 (Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments): This provision explicitly deals with the judicial process of submitting arguments in court, replacing Cr.P.C. Section 314.

The petitioner’s question is direct: “Most respected Sir, whether the police can register the non-cognizable report under the following sections of BNSS which are applied for the court proceedings.

If the police have indeed registered an NCR using these court-specific sections, it points to a critical failure in training and understanding of the new criminal code, severely “lowering the credibility of police.

---

🛑 The High Court Directives on Illegal Detention (107/116/151 Cr.P.C.)

The petitioner includes a crucial press note from the Information and Public Relations Department, U.P., dated September 9, 2021. This note highlights the Supreme and High Court directives concerning the misuse of preventive detention sections (Cr.P.C. 107/116/151, now generally corresponding to BNSS 126/135/170).

The key points of the directive are:

• Executive Magistrates must use their powers judiciously and based on the merits of the case, ensuring the fundamental rights of citizens are protected.
• Compensation: If a person’s illegal detention is proven, the victim is entitled to a compensation of ₹25,000.
• Action Against Officials: Punitive action will be taken against the officer responsible for the illegal detention.

Mahima Maurya directly links this to her case, stating, “My husband Pramod Kumar Kushwaha was put behind the bars illegally.” Given the contradictions in the police reports and the immediate bail granted by the Magistrate, the petitioner is positioning the case directly within the ambit of these High Court directives to seek compensation and disciplinary action against the police officials involved.

---

Conclusion: A Demand for Accountability and Rectification

Mahima Maurya’s twin grievances serve as a potent example of how the transition to the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) may be exposing administrative and procedural weaknesses at the implementation level.

The issues raised are multifaceted and demand attention at the highest levels:

1. Legal Accuracy: Immediate clarification is needed on why court procedure sections (BNSS 115 and 352) were allegedly used to register a Non-Cognizable Report.
2. Accountability: The police must reconcile the contradictory reasons given for the preventive arrest of Mithilesh Maurya and justify his arrest in Mirzapur when he resides in Prayagraj.
3. Transparency (RTI): The failure to provide a statutory reason for denying information under the RTI Act must be addressed.
4. Redressal: Given the High Court directives on illegal detention, an independent inquiry is warranted to determine if the detention of Pramod Kumar Kushwaha (and Mithilesh Maurya) was illegal, which would necessitate compensation and disciplinary action against the responsible officers.

The petitioner, Mahima Maurya, has effectively used the grievance mechanism to highlight an alleged “tetra-polar” conflict involving the Police, the Department of Medical and Health, the Quasi-Judicial Court, and the Victim/Accused. The “Under Process” status of the second grievance provides an opportunity for the authorities to conduct a thorough review and ensure that the new BNSS is applied according to the letter and spirit of the law, upholding citizen’s rights and police credibility.

---

Would you like me to analyze the specific provisions of BNSS Section 170 (Preventive Arrest) in greater detail compared to Cr.P.C. Section 151?

If L.D.A. is seeking documents from Dinesh Pratap Singh, then it must provide list in sequence so that verification may be carried out. U.P. faces crunch of competent and honest staffs in government. U.P.H.R.C. directed Vice Chairman L.D.A. to ensure action in perspective of orders on complaints of Yogi M.P. Singh victim Dinesh Pratap Singh

Think about the deep rooted corruption of L.D.A. that every grievance is categorised as C-Category of Dinesh Pratap Singh