This compilation indexes 12 rulings — from multiple High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal — in which proceedings were filed under or in reference to Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (the successor provision to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), or where Section 438 of the BNSS was invoked as the procedural vehicle for criminal revision or anticipatory bail applications. Two of the rulings originate from the ITAT and engage substantive income-tax provisions. The compilation is intended for legal researchers, in-house counsel, Big-4 tax associates, and law firm practitioners who need a structured reference point for how courts across jurisdictions have engaged with Section 438 BNSS and related proceedings during the 2025–2026 period.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference, not legal or tax advice. Readers must verify all rulings against the full original judgment, check for subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified counsel before acting on any information contained herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — which corresponds to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — provides for the grant of anticipatory bail by a Sessions Court or High Court to a person who has reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Under the provision, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest the person shall be released on bail, subject to such conditions as the court may impose. The BNSS re-enacted and carried forward the anticipatory bail framework of the CrPC; accordingly, earlier jurisprudence developed under Section 438 CrPC continues to be cited and applied by courts adjudicating petitions under the corresponding BNSS provision. Several of the rulings in this compilation are also filed as criminal revision petitions under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, which relates to the revision jurisdiction of higher courts over orders of subordinate courts.

The 12 rulings

1. Suraj Goyal vs C.M.Goyal @ Chandrakumar M.Goyal

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 16 September 2026
Sections engaged: 125
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as a Criminal Revision Case (CRL RC No. 97 of 2026) under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, directed against an order dated 15.10.2025 passed in M.C. No. 17 of 2024 by the VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai. Per the source preview, the Family Court had awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 75,000/- payable by the petitioner (the son of the respondent) to the respondent; the revision was filed by the son challenging that maintenance award.

2. Ajay Jalan @ Ajay Kumar Jalan vs The Directorate Of Enforcement

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 9 September 2026
Sections engaged: 120B, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 227, 250, 5(1), 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The instant criminal revision under Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS was directed against an order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-Cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi, in connection with ECIR Case No. 07 of 2023 (ECIR/RNZO/04/2021), registered for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, per the source preview. The source preview indicates that charges had been framed by the Special Court; the revision was preferred by Ajay Jalan, Partner of M/s Zeal India Chemicals.

3. Ge India Industrial (P) Ltd.,,Haryana vs The ACIT.,Kheda Circle,, Nadiad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 9 September 2026
Sections engaged: 244A, 271(1)(c), 37(1), 43B, 92C, 92C(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These are twin assessee appeals — ITA Nos. 3695/Del/2015 and 2781/Ahd/2012 — for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, arising against assessment orders dated 27.03.2015 and 31.10.2012 respectively, per the source preview. The appeals involve proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the source preview indicates the matters were heard and pronounced upon on 09.09.2026 by the Delhi Bench of the ITAT.

4. Mahesh Gupta vs Union Of India And Another

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 8 September 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 67, 69, 70
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitions (CRM-M-15056-2026 and CRM-M-17743-2026) were filed under Section 482 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC), seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department under the Central Goods and Services Tax framework, per the source preview. The two petitions were disposed of together as they arose out of the same investigation and involved identical questions of law and substantially similar facts.

5. Balkar Singh vs State Of Punjab

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 7 September 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This was the second petition filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC), seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0257 dated 16.09.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, per the source preview. The source preview indicates the prosecution's case concerned alleged preparation of a forged agreement to sell dated 06.11.2020 in respect of land measuring 96 kanals situated in Village Khai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.

6. Sandeep Goyal vs State Of Haryana

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition was filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 CrPC), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0109 dated 17.06.2026, registered at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala, per the source preview. The source preview notes that the role attributed to the petitioner, per the State's reply dated 01.09.2026, included artificially depositing funds into the complainant's account to create a false defence of valid sale consideration and thereafter receiving the money back in cash.

7. Kunal Arora And Anr vs State Of Punjab

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before the Punjab-Haryana High Court in CRM-M-33694-2026, decided on 04.08.2026, per the source preview. The source preview indicates that an FIR was registered on the complaint of Deepak Sharma alleging that the petitioners, in conspiracy with each other, had prepared forged rent agreements dated 29.09.2020 and 28.08.2021 purportedly executed by the complainant, and had utilised the said documents before the GST Department for obtaining registration; the petitioner had defaulted on rent and other charges resulting in an outstanding liability of approximately Rs. 29,90,000/-.

8. Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes Thr vs Pankaj Vithal Tari Volvoikar And 3 Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 15 June 2026
Sections engaged: 164
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was filed as Criminal Writ Petition No. 39 of 2026 (WPCR 39-2026) before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, per the source preview. The petitioner, Shri Noberto Paulo Sebastiao Fernandes, appeared through a constituted Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Neil Fernandes, per the source preview; the nature of the substantive reliefs sought and the final disposition are not elaborated in the available source preview.

9. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata , Kolkata vs M/S. Bata India Ltd., Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as ITA No. 1845/KOL/2017 for Assessment Year 2010-2011, with the date of hearing recorded as 01.04.2026 and date of pronouncement as 08.06.2026, per the source preview. Per the source preview, the issues raised by the revenue included royalty paid towards fees for technical services to AE Global Footwear Services Pte. Ltd., Singapore, amounting to Rs. 12,37,50,000/-, and deletion of an addition under section 43B amounting to Rs. 94,49,341/-.

10. Manilal Halubhai Kaila vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 4 May 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The present application was filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, per the source preview. Per the source preview, the applicant — the original complainant and father of the deceased — challenged the common order dated 08.10.2024 passed below Exh. 263 and 264 in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, Morbi.

11. Yaser Arafat .K vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 25 February 2026
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was filed as CRL.REV.PET No. 162 of 2026 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, against the order dated 31.12.2025 in CMP 613/2025 in CC No. 1 of 2023 of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam, per the source preview. The revision petitioner was Accused No. 3 in CC No. 1/2023; the respondent was the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Cochin.

12. 2025:Jklhc-Jmu:3957 vs Respondent(S)

Bench: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Date: 28 November 2025
Sections engaged: Sections not specified
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Petitioners Aftar Ahmed and Zulafqar Ali filed the instant bail application (Bail App No. 117/2025) seeking pre-arrest/anticipatory bail in a case registered at Police Station Mendhar vide FIR No. 31/2025 on 27.03.2025, per the source preview. The petitioners alleged false implication by the complainant; the source preview indicates the FIR alleged that petitioner no. 1 had abducted the respondent no. 2 and forcibly married her, while the petitioners' case was that the marriage was solemnised on the complainant's own free will on 15.02.2025, with a Nikkahnama placed on record.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 438 BNSS as the universal procedural vehicle. Across the majority of the High Court rulings in this set, Section 438 of the BNSS (or its CrPC predecessor) is the procedural mechanism through which the application or revision is brought — whether for anticipatory bail, criminal revision against a lower-court order, or a challenge to subordinate court proceedings. This reflects the broad reach of the provision as a gateway to Higher Court intervention in criminal matters.
Parallel invocation of Section 482 BNSS alongside Section 438 BNSS. Multiple cases in this set (cases 4, 5, and 6 from the Punjab-Haryana High Court) reflect the contemporaneous practice of filing under Section 482 of the BNSS (described in those previews as "corresponding to Section 438 CrPC"), suggesting that courts and practitioners are navigating the transitional nomenclature between the CrPC and the BNSS, with Section 482 BNSS now being deployed for the same applications that were earlier brought under Section 438 CrPC.
Alleged forgery and document fraud as recurring factual backdrop. In several of the High Court matters — including cases 5, 6, and 7 — the factual substratum involves allegations of forged documents (forged agreements to sell, forged rent agreements), suggesting that proceedings under the anticipatory bail framework frequently arise in contexts involving document-based fraud with financial or property consequences.
ITAT matters indexed under Section 438 raise substantive income-tax issues. Two entries in this compilation (cases 3 and 9) originate from the ITAT rather than criminal courts. Their inclusion reflects a database-level indexing feature; the substantive issues in those matters relate to income-tax provisions and do not engage Section 438 BNSS/CrPC in any procedural sense. Researchers should note this distinction when using this compilation for criminal-law research versus income-tax research.
Outcomes uniformly unreported in source previews. None of the 12 rulings carry a specified outcome in the source data, which limits the analytical value of this index for outcome-pattern research. Readers are strongly encouraged to retrieve the full text of each judgment from the originating court portal or indiankanoon.org to ascertain the operative order.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for legal research, not a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry above is derived from structured metadata and a partial text preview of the original order; in several cases the preview is limited to procedural or party-identification content and does not capture the court's reasoning, findings, or operative directions. Before relying on any ruling for any purpose — including submissions before a tribunal or court, internal legal memoranda, or compliance assessments — researchers must retrieve and read the complete judgment from the originating court's portal, indiankanoon.org, or the official cause-list/judgment database of the relevant High Court or ITAT bench.

Researchers should also verify whether any ruling listed here has been subsequently stayed, set aside, appealed, or affirmed at a higher level. Anticipatory bail orders, in particular, are frequently time-limited, modified on fresh applications, or rendered infructuous by subsequent events. Criminal revision orders may likewise be challenged before a higher forum. The date of order noted in each entry reflects the date of the ruling indexed here; it does not represent the current status of proceedings.

Finally, practitioners working on matters that straddle the CrPC-to-BNSS transition should note that several courts in these rulings describe Section 482 of the BNSS as "corresponding to Section 438 CrPC" and vice versa. The precise mapping of CrPC provisions to their BNSS counterparts is a matter of statutory interpretation on which authoritative CBDT or Ministry of Law guidance, as well as evolving High Court jurisprudence, should be consulted separately.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 438 BNSS / CrPC: 12 High Court & ITAT Rulings (2025–2026)