Mandatory Timelines for Investigation and Trial — BNSS New Provisions

In India, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in force from 1 July 2024, fixes periods for stages the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) left open: 14 days to supply documents (Section 230), 60 days to frame charge (Sections 251, 263) and 45 days to pronounce judgment (Section 392). The 60/90-day custody cap (Section 187(3)) carries over.

At a glance

Every period below is read from the Gazette text of the BNSS and the original text of the CrPC. "—" means the CrPC had no counterpart provision.

Arrest and the first steps of investigation

• Section 58, Modified. No detention beyond twenty-four hours, exclusive of journey time, without a Magistrate's special order under Section 187 (was Section 167). New words: the journey is to the Magistrate's Court "whether having jurisdiction or not".
• Section 173, New periods. Electronic information "shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it" (Section 173(1)(ii)); the optional preliminary enquiry in the three-to-under-seven-year band must be done "within a period of fourteen days" (Section 173(3)). See the Zero FIR guide.
• Section 176(3), New. The forensic-expert visit applies "from such date, as may be notified within a period of five years by the State Government" — a window for State notification, not a deadline for investigators. See Section 176 BNSS.
• Section 184, Modified. The rape survivor is still sent to the doctor within twenty-four hours; the report must now reach the investigating officer "within a period of seven days" (Section 184(6)), where Section 164A(6) CrPC said "without delay".

Custody limits and default bail — Section 187

Section 187 is a custody rule, not a chargesheet deadline.

"(2) ... authorise, from time to time, the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days out of detention period of sixty days or ninety days, as the case may be, as provided in sub-section (3) ..." — BNSS s.187(2) (extract)

"(2) ... for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; ... Provided that— (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days ..." — CrPC s.167(2) and proviso (a) (extract)

What changed:

• Modified — the fifteen days. The CrPC capped initial custody at fifteen days "in the whole". The BNSS adds "or in parts, at any time during the initial forty days or sixty days". On a reading of the text, the fifteen days no longer have to run as one block from the first remand.
• Modified — custody beyond fifteen days. Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) allowed detention beyond fifteen days only "otherwise than in custody of the police". Section 187(3) authorises detention "beyond the period of fifteen days" without those words. How that omission interacts with the fifteen-day cap in Section 187(2) is a question of construction that no judgment read for this guide decides.
• Modified — the 90-day class. "Imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years" became "imprisonment for a term of ten years or more" (Section 187(3)(i)); see Rakesh Kumar Paul below. Sixty days applies to any other offence (Section 187(3)(ii)).
• Minor edit — the consequence. On expiry of ninety or sixty days, "the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail", and is treated as released under the bail chapter (Chapter XXXIII of the CrPC, now Chapter XXXV). Explanation I keeps the accused in custody so long as bail is not furnished.

Apart from Section 193(2), the BNSS sets no fixed period for completing an investigation (Section 193(1): "without unnecessary delay"); what expires at sixty or ninety days is the power to hold the accused in custody. Full remand rules: Section 167 CrPC vs Section 187 BNSS and the bail guide.

Completing the investigation — Sections 193 and 194

• Section 193(2), Expanded. Investigation of offences under Sections 64–68, 70 or 71 BNS, or Sections 4, 6, 8 or 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, "shall be completed within two months from the date on which the information was recorded". Section 173(1A) CrPC (inserted by Act 5 of 2009, amended by Act 22 of 2018) covered the IPC rape offences; its period is missing from the text of the Code available to us, so it is not stated here.
• Section 193(3)(ii), New. Within ninety days the police must inform the informant or the victim of the progress of the investigation — an information duty, not a completion deadline.
• Section 193(9), proviso, New. Further investigation during the trial needs the trial court's permission and must end within ninety days, extendable by the court. Section 173(8) CrPC set no period.
• Section 194(2), Modified. The inquest report goes to the Magistrate "within twenty-four hours" (Section 174(2) CrPC: "forthwith").

See Section 173 CrPC vs Section 193 BNSS.

From police report to charge

The CrPC set almost no periods between the police report and the start of evidence. The BNSS chains them:

1. Documents (Section 230). Supply to the accused, and to the victim if represented by an advocate, "without delay, and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused". The clock runs from production or appearance, not from the chargesheet; electronic supply counts as due supply.
2. Committal (Section 232, proviso). "within a period of ninety days from the date of taking cognizance", extendable "for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days" for recorded reasons.
3. Discharge (Sections 250(1), 262(1)). Sixty days from commitment (Sessions) or from supply of documents under Section 230 (warrant cases).
4. Charge (Sections 251(1)(b), 263(1)). "within a period of sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge".
5. Plea bargaining (Section 290(1)) and documents (Section 330(1)). Thirty days from framing of charge; admit or deny documents "in no case later than thirty days after such supply", which the court may relax. See the plea-bargaining guide.

Detail: discharge and framing of charge deadlines.

The trial: day-to-day hearing and adjournments — Section 346

Section 346 has two sub-sections only. Sub-section (1) keeps the day-to-day rule, and its proviso requires the inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 64–68, 70 or 71 BNS (not Section 69) to "be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet" — the rule already in the proviso to Section 309(1) CrPC, as substituted by Act 13 of 2013. It did not list Section 376E IPC (repeat offenders); its counterpart, Section 71 BNS, is now listed.

"Provided also that— (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing;" — BNSS s.346(2), last proviso (extract)

What changed in sub-section (2):

• Identical — clause (a). The bar on party-requested adjournments was already clause (a) of the last proviso to Section 309(2) CrPC, inserted by Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 1 November 2010.
• New — clause (b). The two-adjournment cap. It applies only where the circumstances are beyond the party's control; in every other case clause (a) already bars a party-requested adjournment.
• Minor edit — clauses (c) and (d). The old clauses (b) and (c), renumbered, with "pleader" now "advocate".
• Modified — remand. The first proviso now reads "no Court shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time"; the CrPC said "no Magistrate".

Judgment — Sections 258 and 392

In a Sessions trial the Judge gives judgment "as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing" (Section 258(1)); Section 235(1) CrPC fixed no period.

For every trial in a criminal court of original jurisdiction, Section 392(1) requires pronouncement immediately after termination of the trial "or at some subsequent time not later than forty-five days", with notice to the parties or their advocates. Section 353(1) CrPC had no outer limit. A new proviso to Section 392(4) requires the court, "as far as practicable", to upload the judgment on its portal within seven days.

Mercy petitions — Section 472

Section 472 has no CrPC counterpart: thirty days to file from the jail Superintendent's intimation (Section 472(1)), sixty-day steps in Sections 472(2)–(4), and forty-eight hours to communicate the President's order (Section 472(6)). It fixes no period for the President's or Governor's decision. See the mercy petition guide.

What the text says about missing a time limit

Most of these provisions use "shall", but only a few attach a consequence:

• Section 187(3): release on bail on expiry of sixty or ninety days, if the accused furnishes bail.
• Section 187(9): in a summons-case, the Magistrate "shall make an order stopping further investigation" not concluded within six months of arrest, unless special reasons are shown; the Sessions Judge may vacate that order under Section 187(10).

Sections 230, 232, 251, 258, 263 and 392 state no consequence for non-compliance. Whether any of them is mandatory or directory is a question the text does not answer, and no Supreme Court judgment construing them was read for this guide.

What this means in practice

• Accused and defence advocate. Track the sixty or ninety days under Section 187(3) and apply for release on the day they expire; under the CrPC the Supreme Court counted them from the date of detention ordered by the Magistrate, not from the date of arrest (Anupam J. Kulkarni, below). Note the date of first production or appearance: Section 230 papers are due within fourteen days of it. Diary the sixty-day discharge window (Section 250(1) or 262(1)) and the thirty-day plea-bargaining window (Section 290(1)); both are periods for the accused's own applications.
• Victim. With an advocate on record, the victim is entitled to the Section 230 papers within the same fourteen days. The police must report progress within ninety days (Section 193(3)(ii)). See the victim rights guide.
• Investigating officer. Two months for listed sexual offences (Section 193(2)); court permission and ninety days for further investigation during trial (Section 193(9)).
• Trial advocate. Arrange witnesses before the date. A request to adjourn must show circumstances beyond the party's control, and even then two adjournments is the ceiling (Section 346(2)). Admit or deny documents within thirty days of supply (Section 330(1)).

Judgments that still matter

These judgments construe the CrPC provisions the BNSS carries forward or replaces; none construing a BNSS time limit was read.

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 158 (1992 INSC 154) — 8 May 1992. A two-Judge Bench (A.M. Ahmadi and K. Jayachandra Reddy JJ.) summed up the Section 167 rules: within the first fifteen days the Magistrate may switch between police and judicial custody, but "After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period of investigation can only be in judicial custody" (report p.178). The fifteen days run from the date of detention ordered by the Magistrate (p.179). Why it matters: Section 187(2) BNSS now allows the fifteen days "in the whole, or in parts" within the initial forty or sixty days. On a reading of the text, that is a different rule from the one Anupam Kulkarni applied to Section 167.

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra, [2023] 3 S.C.R. 321 (2023 INSC 345) — 10 April 2023. The accused had been hospitalised and obtained interim bail during a seven-day police-custody order. The Court said "the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration" (para 7.1), held that no accused can frustrate the judicial process by his conduct (para 8), and allowed the CBI four days' police custody (para 10). Why it matters: on a reading of the text, Section 187(2) BNSS now addresses that question in its own words ("in the whole, or in parts").

Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, [2017] 8 S.C.R. 785 (2017 INSC 754) — 16 August 2017. Three Judges; Madan B. Lokur J., with Deepak Gupta J. concurring in a separate opinion and Prafulla C. Pant J. dissenting. Lokur J. held that "not less than" in clause (i) of proviso (a) to Section 167(2) must mean "not below a minimum threshold", so the words "must relate to an offence punishable with a minimum of 10 years imprisonment" (para 25). Why it matters: Section 187(3)(i) BNSS now says "ten years or more". Whether those words carry the same minimum-sentence meaning is a question of construction on which no BNSS judgment was read.

State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 854 — 29 March 2001. K.T. Thomas J., for a two-Judge Bench, held that once examination of witnesses begins, the trial must continue from day to day, a witness present in court must be examined that day, and "inconvenience of an advocate is not a 'special reason' for bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code" (report p.861). The acquittal was set aside. Why it matters: Section 346(1) and clause (c) of the last proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS keep the day-to-day rule and the advocate-engaged-elsewhere bar.

Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, [2001] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 298 (2001 INSC 342) — 6 August 2001. Reading Section 353(1) CrPC's "some subsequent time", R.P. Sethi J. wrote that "Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case" (report p.308), and laid down guidelines for High Courts on reserved judgments; K.T. Thomas J. concurred. Why it matters: Section 392(1) BNSS now writes an outer limit of forty-five days into the statute for trial courts.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is disposed of, continued, held or made under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that text, a trial pending on 30 June 2024 continues under the CrPC's procedure, including its time rules, while proceedings begun on or after 1 July 2024 follow the BNSS periods above. See offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the 60/90-day period in Section 187(3) BNSS a deadline for filing the chargesheet?

No. Section 187(3) BNSS caps the total custody a Magistrate may authorise during investigation at ninety days (offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years or more) or sixty days (any other offence). On expiry the accused shall be released on bail if prepared to and does furnish bail. The police report can still be filed later; what lapses is the power to keep the accused in custody under Section 187.

When must documents be supplied to the accused under Section 230 BNSS?

Section 230 BNSS requires the Magistrate to furnish the police report, the FIR, statements under Section 180(3), confessions and statements under Section 183 and other forwarded documents without delay and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused. A victim represented by an advocate receives the same set. Section 207 CrPC said only 'without delay'.

Is there a time limit for framing charges under the BNSS?

Yes. Section 251(1)(b) (Sessions cases) and Section 263(1) (warrant cases on a police report) require the charge to be framed within sixty days from the date of first hearing on charge. Discharge applications must be made within sixty days of commitment (Section 250(1)) or of supply of documents (Section 262(1)). Neither section states a consequence for missing the period.

How many adjournments can a court grant under Section 346 BNSS?

Clause (a) of the last proviso to Section 346(2) BNSS bars any adjournment at a party's request unless the circumstances are beyond that party's control. Clause (b) then caps adjournments in that situation at two, granted after hearing the other party's objections and for written reasons. Section 346 has only two sub-sections; the cap is in sub-section (2).

Does the two-month trial limit for rape cases start from charge framing?

No. The proviso to Section 346(1) BNSS requires the inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 BNS to be completed within two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. Section 69 BNS is not listed. The proviso to Section 309(1) CrPC carried the same two-month rule for the IPC rape offences it listed; it did not list Section 376E IPC, whose counterpart, Section 71 BNS, is now included.

When must a criminal court pronounce judgment under the BNSS?

In a Sessions trial, Section 258(1) BNSS requires judgment within thirty days from completion of arguments, extendable to forty-five days for recorded reasons. For every trial in a court of original jurisdiction, Section 392(1) requires pronouncement not later than forty-five days after termination of the trial. Section 353(1) CrPC fixed no outer limit.

Do the BNSS timelines apply to a case pending on 1 July 2024?

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an investigation, inquiry, trial or appeal pending immediately before the Sanhita came into force is disposed of, continued or held under the CrPC as if the Sanhita had not come into force. On a reading of that text, a trial pending on 30 June 2024 continues under the CrPC's procedure, including its time rules.

Related

• Section 167 CrPC vs Section 187 BNSS: remand and default bail
• Discharge application and framing of charge deadlines: BNSS 250–263
• Section 173 CrPC vs Section 193 BNSS: police report
• Mercy petition and commutation: CrPC vs BNSS
• Victim rights and compensation: CrPC vs BNSS
• Offence before 1 July 2024: which law applies
• Section 313 CrPC vs Section 351 BNSS — Examination of the Accused
• Section 319 CrPC vs Section 358 BNSS — Summoning Additional Accused
• Section 207 CrPC vs Section 230 BNSS — Supply of Police Report and Documents to the Accused (CrPC 207-208)
• Section 309 CrPC vs Section 346 BNSS — Adjournments and Day-to-Day Trial
• Sections 206–209 CrPC vs Sections 229–232 BNSS — Special Summons in Petty Offences and Commitment to the Court of Session
• Sections 272–283 CrPC vs Sections 307–318 BNSS — Mode of Taking and Recording Evidence
• Sections 225–237 CrPC vs Sections 248–260 BNSS — Trial Before a Court of Session
• Sections 353–365 CrPC vs Sections 392–406 BNSS — The Judgment

Sources

• Acts and sections read: BNSS 2023 ss.58, 173, 176(3), 184, 187, 193, 194(2), 230, 232, 250, 251, 258, 262, 263, 290(1), 330(1), 346, 392, 472 and 531 (Gazette CG-DL-E-25122023-250884); CrPC 1973 ss.57, 164A, 167, 173, 174(2), 207, 209, 227, 228, 235, 239, 240, 265B, 294, 309 and 353 with their amendment footnotes (original India Code text).
• Judgments read (Veritect judgment corpus, full text): CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992_3_158_179_EN.md); CBI v. Vikas Mishra (2023_3_321_331_EN.md); Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017_8_785_851_EN.md); State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001_2_854_863_EN.md); Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (S_2001_1_298_327_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.