Skip to content
LAW LIBRARY.Online
Central Act · India · CHAPTER VII — Processes to Compel the Production of Things

Section 96 BNSS When search-warrant may be issued

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 · Edition: User-supplied Law Library BNSS page, attributed to India Code as on 6 October 2025; imported 6 November 2026

(1) Where—

(a) any Court has reason to believe that a person to whom a summons order under section 94 or a requisition under sub-section (1) of section 95 has been, or might be, addressed, will not or would not produce the document or thing as required by such summons or requisition; or

(b) such document or thing is not known to the Court to be in the possession of any person; or

(c) the Court considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita will be served by a general search or inspection, it may issue a search-warrant; and the person to whom such warrant is directed, may search or inspect in accordance therewith and the provisions hereinafter contained.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, specify in the warrant the particular place or part thereof to which only the search or inspection shall extend; and the person charged with the execution of such warrant shall then search or inspect only the place or part so specified.

(3) Nothing contained in this section shall authorise any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant a warrant to search for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of the postal authority.

Source document ↗

Judgments on Section 96

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 100 · High Court of Kerala

Salu P. Kumar v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 85977

An investigating officer cannot issue a notice under Section 94 BNSS (Section 91 Cr.P.C.) compelling an accused to produce a mobile phone alleged to hold incriminating material, as that violates Article 20(3); the police may instead search and seize in accordance with law.

LOK 2026 (11) Ker. 44 · High Court of Kerala

Abdul Rafeek @ Rafeek v. State of Kerala

Equivalent citations: 2026 KER 84411

ActsBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, The Constitution of India, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 91 & Section 439(2) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 94 — Constitution of India — Article 20(3) — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 5, 6, 11, 12, 16 & 17 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — Sections 49, 64(2)(m), 65(2) & 332(a)

Bail may be cancelled to enable custodial interrogation needed for further investigation; Section 94 BNSS cannot be used to compel an accused to produce an incriminating mobile phone.

LOK 2021 (2) Ker. 236 · High Court of Kerala

Kurian v. Joseph

Equivalent citations: 2021 (2) KLT 368 : 2021 (2) KLJ 357 : ILR 2021 (2) Ker. 541 : 2021 (2) KHC 124 : 2021 (1) KLD 382

ActsBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 202, 203 and 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Registration Act, 1908

A Magistrate dismissing a private complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without considering the sworn statements recorded in the Section 202 enquiry errs; non-production of an original deed held by the accused is no ground, as no Section 91 notice can issue to an accused.

LOK 1995 (12) Ker. 221 · High Court of Kerala

V. Gopalakrishnan Nayanar v. K.V. Sasidharan

Equivalent citations: 1996 CriLJ 1302 : 1996 (1) KLT 83 : 1996 (1) KLJ 88 : ILR 1996 (2) Ker. 13

ActsThe Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 93 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 319 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

A person arrayed as accused in a private complaint is “a person accused of any offence” under Article 20(3) even while the Section 202 Cr.P.C. enquiry is pending, so no Section 91 order to produce documents can issue against him; Raveendran v. Prakasan overruled.