Audio-Video Recording of Search and Seizure Under the BNSS (Section 105): a New Safeguard (2026)

Explainer · Criminal Procedure · BNSS

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

A police search of a home or an office is one of the moments where things can go wrong, or be said to have gone wrong. Items may be planted. A seizure may be exaggerated. Independent witnesses may not be truly independent. For years, the only proof of what happened during a search was the written panchnama and the word of the witnesses. Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) changes that, by requiring the whole search and seizure to be recorded on audio-video. This explainer sets out what the provision requires, why it is new, and how courts are applying it. Last verified October 2026.

01The problem with unrecorded searches

A search and seizure often decides a case. If contraband or a document is recovered from an accused, that recovery can be the backbone of the prosecution. If the defence says it was planted, the court is left weighing one word against another.

The old system relied on the panchnama, a written record of the search, signed by independent witnesses. In practice, those witnesses were sometimes not independent, and the written record could not show what the camera would have shown. The result was endless disputes about what really happened during the search.

Section 105 answers this by adding a camera. It is a procedure, not an offence. It does not punish anyone. It changes how a lawful search and seizure is to be recorded.

02What Section 105 says

Section 105 of the BNSS requires the process of a search or a seizure to be recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably a mobile phone. The recording duty covers the whole process, not just the end result.

• It applies to the search of a place and the taking of possession of any property, article or thing under the relevant chapter, including under Section 185.
• It covers the preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of the search and seizure, and the signing of that list by witnesses.
• The officer must forward the recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class without delay.

The camera records the whole search, including the seizure list and the witnesses signing it. The recording then goes to a Magistrate. That is the safeguard.

03Why this is a new safeguard

Section 105 has no direct equivalent in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is one of the new technology-driven safeguards in the BNSS.

The old search provisions, such as the search procedure under Section 100 CrPC and the search by an investigating officer under Section 165 CrPC, relied on written records and independent witnesses. Section 105 does not replace those rules on when and how a search may be done. It adds a new requirement on top: that the process be recorded on audio-video and the recording sent to a Magistrate. In short, the old law relied on the credibility of witnesses and the panchnama, and the new law adds recorded, transparent proof.

04How the courts are applying it

The courts have begun to treat the recording as a serious requirement, and to notice when it is missing.

High Courts have observed that the mandate is, in many places, still not being followed in practice, and have pulled up the police for it. They have not all read the consequence of a missing recording the same way. In some matters a missing recording has been treated as a reason to doubt the recovery and to grant bail. In others, a search carried out without the recording has been held to be improper.

The section is silent on exactly what follows if the recording is never made, so the High Courts are working that out case by case. The safe reading is that the recording should be made and preserved, and its absence should be explained.

05Link with electronic evidence

Section 105 works alongside the new evidence law. The recording of the search is itself an electronic record, and electronic records are recognised as admissible evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), subject to the certificate and other requirements for electronic evidence.

So the recording is not just an internal check. It is intended to be usable in court. For how electronic records are proved, see how to prove a WhatsApp chat or email in court under the BSA and presumptions about electronic records under the BSA.

06Practical points

• Insist on the recording. Where a search and seizure is carried out, the audio-video recording is required. Its presence or absence is a fair question in cross-examination.
• Check that the whole process is recorded. The duty covers the search, the seizure, the list, and the witnesses signing it, not just one clip of the recovery.
• Ask where the recording went. The officer must forward it to the Magistrate without delay. The chain of custody of the recording matters.
• Explain any gap. If the recording was not made, the reason should be on the record, because courts are treating silence as a weakness.

For the wider vocabulary of a criminal case, see the glossary of Indian litigation terms.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

Section 105 is new, and the meaning of a missing recording is being worked out in the High Courts right now, so the law here can shift from one week to the next. Claw keeps you current on both the research and the matter. Its case search reaches more than 30 crore judgements, the Supreme Court from 1950 and the High Courts from 1990, so you can read how judges have treated the audio-video requirement for search and seizure and pull a court-ready citation in under five seconds. Its tracking follows cases, orders and hearings under this provision across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, with updates by WhatsApp and email. You can search cases by party name or by advocate name, across the full case search coverage of Indian courts.

Create a free Claw account to follow how the courts read Section 105, by party or advocate name. Claw does not conduct searches and does not replace legal advice. Claw does not use customer case documents to train its AI models.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (official statute text): indiacode.nic.in
• Bare text of the BNSS: devgan.in
• Ministry of Home Affairs (new criminal laws): mha.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The new codes are still being read and applied by the courts, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions