CrPC 165 vs BNSS 185: Police Search Without Warrant Explained (2026)

In India, Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024, and Section 186 replaced Section 166. The no-warrant search power is unchanged, but the grounds now go in the case-diary, the search must be video-recorded, and records reach the Magistrate within forty-eight hours.

At a glance

Old section	New section	What it does	Change
165(1)	185(1)	Search without warrant by officer in charge or investigating officer, after recording grounds	Modified — grounds recorded "in the case-diary"
165(2)	185(2)	Search in person if practicable	Expanded — proviso requiring audio-video recording, "preferably by mobile phone"
165(3)	185(3)	Search by a subordinate on a written order	Identical
165(4)	185(4)	Search-warrant provisions and general search provisions apply	Minor edit — "this Sanhita"; s.100 → s.103
165(5)	185(5)	Copies of the record to the Magistrate; free copy to the owner or occupier	Modified — "forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours"
166(1)–(5)	186(1)–(5)	Search through, or in the area of, another police station	Minor edit — s.165 → s.185; s.100 → s.103
—	105	Recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means, forwarded to a Magistrate	New (outside s.185)

Both sections are procedural: they carry no punishment and no classification in the First Schedule. They operate in an investigation under Chapter XIII BNSS (Chapter XII CrPC). Commencement: 1 July 2024, S.O. 848(E) of 23 February 2024.

What changed

Modified — where the grounds are recorded (s.185(1)). Section 165(1) CrPC required the officer to act "after recording in writing the grounds of his belief". Section 185(1) reads "after recording in writing the grounds of his belief in the case-diary". Section 192(2) BNSS calls the diary kept day by day under s.192(1) the "case diary" (s.172 CrPC).
New — audio-video recording (proviso to s.185(2)). "Provided that the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone." Section 2(1)(a) BNSS says "audio-video electronic means" includes use of any communication device for, among other things, "recording of processes of identification, search and seizure".
Identical — search by a subordinate (s.185(3)). Where the officer cannot search in person and no other competent person is present, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, give a subordinate a written order specifying the place and, so far as possible, the thing to be searched for.
Minor edit — cross-references (s.185(4)). "The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100" becomes "this Sanhita" and "section 103".
Modified — deadline to the Magistrate (s.185(5)). "Shall forthwith be sent" becomes "shall forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours, be sent". The owner or occupier's right to a free copy from the Magistrate, on application, is unchanged.
Minor edit — Section 186. Sub-sections (1) to (5) repeat s.166 CrPC word for word except that "section 165" becomes "section 185" (sub-sections (2), (3) and (4)) and "section 100" becomes "section 103" (sub-section (4)). The sub-inspector rank floor in sub-section (1) is unchanged.
New, outside s.185 — Section 105 BNSS. The process of search or seizure "under this Chapter or under section 185", including preparing and signing the seizure list, "shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone", and the police officer "shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class". The CrPC had no equivalent.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Section 165(1) CrPC (extract): "such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station."

Section 185(1) and (2) BNSS (extract): "such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief in the case-diary and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made … (2) A police officer proceeding under sub-section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person: Provided that the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone."

Section 185(5) BNSS (extract): "Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours, be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence".

How it works — the steps

Who may search (s.185(1)). "An officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation."
The belief (s.185(1)). He must have "reasonable grounds for believing" that (a) anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into an offence he is authorised to investigate may be found in a place within the limits of his police station, and (b) it "cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay". A "place" includes "a house, building, tent, vehicle and vessel" (s.2(1)(s)).
Recording before searching (s.185(1)). He records in writing, in the case-diary, the grounds of his belief and, so far as possible, the thing to be searched for.
Searching in person, on video (s.185(2) and proviso). He searches in person if practicable, and the search is recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably by mobile phone.
Delegating (s.185(3)). If he cannot search in person and no other competent person is present, he records his reasons and gives a subordinate a written order naming the place and, so far as possible, the thing.
Search formalities (s.185(4) read with s.103). The general provisions on searches apply "so far as may be". Section 103 requires two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the search (s.103(4)), a list of things seized signed by them (s.103(5)), the occupant's right to attend and to receive a copy of the list (s.103(6)), and a search of a woman only by another woman "with strict regard to decency" (s.103(3)).
Records to the Magistrate (s.185(5) and s.105). Copies of the recorded grounds and any written order go to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance within forty-eight hours at most. The video recording goes, without delay, to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class under s.105.
The occupier's copy (s.185(5)). The owner or occupier of the place searched may apply to the Magistrate for a free copy of the record.

Searches beyond the station limits (s.186). An officer in charge, or an investigating officer not below sub-inspector, may require the officer in charge of another police station, in the same or a different district, to search there (s.186(1)); that officer proceeds under s.185 and forwards what he finds (s.186(2)). If "the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police station" to search "might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being concealed or destroyed", the officer may search there himself "in accordance with the provisions of section 185" (s.186(3)). He must then send notice of the search, with a copy of any s.103 list, to the local officer in charge and send the s.185(1) and (3) records to the nearest Magistrate (s.186(4)); the owner or occupier may apply for a free copy (s.186(5)).

What this means in practice

For the investigating officer. The grounds and the thing sought must be written into the case-diary before the search. The search must be recorded on video, and s.105 requires the recording to be forwarded to a Magistrate without delay. The written records must reach the nearest Magistrate within forty-eight hours. A search under s.186(3) in another station's area is itself done "in accordance with" s.185, so on a reading of the text the same recording and forwarding steps apply.
For the owner or occupier. Ask for the officer's authority, note the witnesses called under s.103(4), attend the search and take the signed list under s.103(6). Afterwards, apply to the Magistrate under s.185(5) (or s.186(5)) for a free copy of the recorded grounds.
For the advocate. Check three dates and documents: the case-diary entry of grounds, the forwarding of copies within forty-eight hours, and the s.105 forwarding of the video. The BNSS does not say what follows from a missing video or a late forwarding. The judgments below, decided before the BNSS, held that an illegal search does not by itself vitiate a seizure but invites careful scrutiny of the seizure evidence. Whether courts will treat the new audio-video mandate differently is not decided in any judgment read for this page.
Special statutes. Some special Acts apply the Code's search provisions to their own officers (Rehman, below, concerned the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944). Cases under other special Acts turn on those Acts' own words and are not summarised here.

Judgments that still matter

The operative conditions in s.185(1) and (3) repeat s.165(1) and (3) CrPC, so, on a reading of the text, judgments on those conditions remain relevant. All four judgments below concern searches under the Code of 1898 (Natwarlal's search was on 6 March 1968; the 1973 Code commenced on 1 April 1974 under its s.1(3)). They are described only by what the Court said.

State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 991, decided 14 October 1959. A Central Excise officer searched a house without recording reasons; the occupant obstructed him and was acquitted of an offence under s.353 IPC. Subba Rao J., for a bench with P.B. Gajendragadkar J., described s.165 as imposing four conditions, including recording the grounds of belief, and observed: "As search is a process exceedingly arbitrary in character, stringent statutory conditions are imposed on the exercise of the power." He added that "The recording of reasons is an important step in the matter of search and to ignore it is to ignore the material part of the provisions governing searches." The Court held the search illegal and dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal. Why it matters now: s.185(1) keeps the duty to record reasons and now fixes where they go — the case-diary.

Radhakishan v. State of U.P., [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 408 (1962 INSC 276), decided 27 September 1962. Mudholkar J., for a three-judge bench, rejected the argument that a search in contravention of ss.103 and 165 vitiated the seizure: "even assuming that the search was illegal the seizure of the articles is not vitiated." The search could be resisted, and the court "may be inclined to examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond these two consequences no further consequence ensues." The appeals were nonetheless allowed and the convictions set aside, on the separate ground that exclusive possession of the postal articles was not proved. Why it matters now: it is the base statement of the consequences of a non-compliant search.

Gopi v. State of U.P., [1970] 3 S.C.R. 490 (1970 INSC 13), decided 3 February 1970. A sub-inspector searched for a stolen buffalo in another police station's area and was attacked. The bench of M. Hidayatullah C.J., A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua JJ. held that s.166(3) gave him authority to search in the other jurisdiction where he had reason to believe the delay of asking that station would lead to the evidence being lost; in a case of stolen cattle "time is of the essence". On the argument that reasons were not recorded, the Court noted that no question had been put to the officer and presumed regularity of official acts. The appeal was dismissed. Why it matters now: the condition as the Court described it — delay in asking the other station leading to evidence being concealed or destroyed — is the condition in s.186(3) BNSS, so, on a reading, the reasoning remains relevant.

State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 340 (1979 INSC 258), decided 4 December 1979. Police searched a house and seized gold, and a customs prosecution followed. Sarkaria J., for a bench with O. Chinnappa Reddy J., held that the police had power under the Code to search and seize if they had reason to believe a cognizable offence had been committed, and that "Assuming arguendo, that the search was illegal, then also, it will not affect the validity of the seizure and further investigation by the Customs Authorities or the validity of the trial". He quoted and applied Radhakishan. The State's appeal against the High Court's acquittal was allowed and the respondent was convicted under s.135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced. Why it matters now: it applies Radhakishan where a police search under the Code led to a prosecution under a special Act.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, a search in an investigation pending on that date is governed by ss.165 and 166 CrPC, which had no case-diary, audio-video or forty-eight-hour requirements; a search in an investigation begun on or after that date is governed by ss.185, 186 and 105 BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 165 CrPC? Section 185 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from 1 July 2024, and Section 186 BNSS replaced Section 166 CrPC. Section 185 keeps the power of an officer in charge of a police station or an investigating officer to search a place without a warrant, and adds the case-diary, audio-video and forty-eight-hour requirements.

Can the police search my home without a warrant under the BNSS? Yes, under Section 185(1) BNSS, if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that something necessary for the investigation may be found in a place within the limits of his police station and cannot otherwise be obtained without undue delay. He must first record in writing, in the case-diary, the grounds of his belief and, so far as possible, the thing to be searched for. Section 2(1)(s) BNSS says a 'place' includes a house, building, tent, vehicle and vessel.

Must a police search under Section 185 BNSS be video-recorded? Yes. The proviso to Section 185(2) BNSS says the search conducted under the section 'shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone'. Section 105 BNSS adds that the recording of a search under Section 185 must be forwarded without delay to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Section 165 CrPC had no recording requirement.

How quickly must the police send the search record to the Magistrate? Section 185(5) BNSS requires copies of the record of grounds (sub-section (1)) and of any order to a subordinate (sub-section (3)) to be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance 'forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours'. Section 165(5) CrPC said only 'forthwith'. The owner or occupier of the place searched can apply to the Magistrate for a free copy.

Can the police search a place outside their own police station area? Section 186(1) BNSS lets an officer ask the officer in charge of another police station to search there. Under Section 186(3), if the delay in asking might result in evidence being concealed or destroyed, the officer may search in the other station's limits himself, in accordance with Section 185, and must then send notice to that station and copies of the records to the nearest Magistrate under Section 186(4).

Is evidence found in an illegal search inadmissible? Not by that fact alone, on the Supreme Court's reading of the Code of 1898. In Radhakishan v. State of U.P., [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 408, the Court said that an illegal search does not vitiate the seizure; the search may be resisted and the court may examine the seizure evidence carefully, but 'beyond these two consequences no further consequence ensues'. State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 340, followed that view.

Do independent witnesses have to be present during a Section 185 search? Section 185(4) BNSS applies the general provisions on searches in Section 103, so far as may be. Section 103(4) and (5) require two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to be called to witness the search, the search to be made in their presence, and a list of things seized to be signed by them, with a copy given to the occupant under Section 103(6).

Sources

Acts and sections read: BNSS 2023 ss.2(1)(a), 2(1)(s), 103, 105, 185, 186, 192, 531 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); CrPC 1973 ss.2(p), 165, 166 (original India Code text).
Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): State of Rajasthan v. Rehman (1960_1_991_997_EN.md); Radhakishan v. State of U.P. (S_1963_1_408_418_EN.md); Gopi v. State of U.P. (1970_3_490_494_EN.md); State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni (1980_2_340_352_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 165 CrPC vs Section 185 BNSS — Search by Police Officer