que 15 2017

ARREST BY A PRIVATE PERSON

The process for a private user’s arrest is outlined in Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This
clause states that anybody, not only a citizen, has the authority to arrest or cause the detention of a
person who commits a non-bailable and cognizable offense in his presence. A declared offender is
included here as well. A private individual is required to turn over a person who has been arrested to a
police officer. He will transport him to the closest police station if there isn’t a police officer present. If
the police have grounds to think that the subject has committed a cognizable offense, the subject will be
re-arrested in accordance with Section 41. When an individual who is suspected of committing quasi-
offense declines to reveal their name and residence to a police officer or provides them with information
that the officer has cause to believe is incorrect, Section 42 will apply to that individual. But if the
policeman has no grounds to suspect that perhaps the individual has committed a felony, he must let
them go.

WHEN WOULD SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE POLICE NEED TO BE ARRESTED?

The basic idea of pursuing such an objective is for the maintenance of peace, according to Justice Per
Parke in Timothy v. Simpson (1835). Every person may limit the freedom of the person who violates the
peace if they observe that person acting in a way that suggests the public peace may be at risk. In
situations where there are no other ways to halt the criminal, Section 43 gives anyone—not just citizens
—the authority to make an arrest. Since the private individual is neither prepared nor educated to deal
with criminals, things might get out of hand and endanger them. As a result, it is stipulated that such
criminals must be turned over to the police or at the closest police station as soon as they are taken into
custody by a private individual. Additionally, it is now required to turn the offender over to the police
because a private individual is incompetent to judge whether he is an offender and deserving of the
arrest. Authorities will conduct more inquiries and take appropriate measures.

OBSERVATIONS AND DECISIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE PERSON ARRESTS

In Amrendra Nath v. State (1955), the court noted that for a private person to conduct an arrest, the
offense must be non-bailable and cognizable and not bailable or non-cognizable.

It was noted in the case of State v. Indra (AIR 1960 Ori 23) that the terms “in his presence” mean that
the crime should have been done in front of his eyes and do not mean that they mean a private person’s
opinion, assumption, suspect, or other information. To apprehend the culprit, the individual person
needs the first information report.

CONCLUSION

An arrest is a process when a person’s freedom is restricted in order to apprehend him for committing a
crime. This may also be done if there is a reason for suspicion so that the accused person may appear in
court. For the sake of maintaining society’s peace, law, and order, it is crucial to make arrests of
criminals. The police often make arrests, although, in some circumstances, private individuals or a
magistrate may also have the authority to do so. The magistrate has the authority’s order someone’s
arrest and, in some circumstances, to order their detention.

Or
Legal Provisions: Section 40 of BNSS
Section 40 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 allows private
individuals to arrest someone under specific conditions:
1. Authority: A private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person
who commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence in their presence, or
any proclaimed offender.
2. Procedure: The private person must hand over the arrested individual to a
police officer without unnecessary delay, and within six hours of the arrest.
3. Conditions: The arrest must be made with sufficient apprehension and
justifiable cause.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
 Facts: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India addressed various
aspects of the powers and responsibilities of individuals, including private
persons, in the context of arrests.
 Ruling: The court recognized the authority of private individuals to arrest
offenders under specific conditions, provided they adhere to legal
procedures and promptly hand over the arrested individual to the police.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Rehman (1960)
 Facts: This case involved the arrest of a proclaimed offender by a private
individual.
 Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the arrest by the private
person, emphasizing the need for such actions to be conducted within the
boundaries of the law and with the intention of preventing further crime.
3. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
 Facts: The case dealt with issues related to the rights of arrested individuals
and the responsibilities of those conducting the arrest, including private
persons.
  Ruling: The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of procedural
safeguards and the need for private individuals to act within the legal
framework when making an arrest.
Practical Implications
1. Responsibility of Private Individuals:
 Private individuals who arrest someone must ensure the action is justified
and necessary. They must avoid using excessive force and must promptly
hand over the arrested person to the police to avoid any legal
complications.
2. Legal Safeguards:
 The BNSS provides protections against arbitrary arrests, ensuring that
private individuals act within the legal framework. This helps maintain a
balance between empowering citizens to act in emergencies and protecting
individual rights.
3. Judicial Oversight:
 Courts play a crucial role in overseeing the legality of arrests made by
private individuals, ensuring that such actions are not abused and that the
rights of the arrested persons are protected.
Conclusion
The provisions under BNSS 2023 and the supporting case laws underscore the
importance of conducting arrests by private individuals within the legal
framework. These measures ensure that such actions are justified, necessary, and
in line with procedural safeguards to protect individual rights and maintain public
order.

Que no 16
Understanding Estoppel in BNSS
1. Basic Concept: Estoppel prevents a person from contradicting or denying a
fact they have previously affirmed, especially if another person has relied
 on that affirmation to their detriment. This principle ensures fairness and
consistency in legal proceedings.
2. Application in Criminal Proceedings: In the context of BNSS, estoppel could
apply in situations where a party, such as a witness or an accused, has
previously made statements or taken actions that they are now trying to
contradict in a subsequent proceeding.
3. Legal Provisions: While BNSS itself might not explicitly mention estoppel,
the principles derived from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (specifically
Section 115) are applicable in criminal proceedings covered under BNSS.
This ensures that parties cannot backtrack on their prior assertions or
representations made during investigations or trials.
Relevant Case Law: Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1956)
 Facts: In this case, Pritam Singh was accused of murder, and during the trial,
the prosecution presented evidence that was inconsistent with their earlier
assertions in a related matter.
 Ruling: The Supreme Court of India applied the doctrine of estoppel,
preventing the prosecution from taking a contradictory stand in the
subsequent trial. The court emphasized the importance of consistency and
fairness in judicial proceedings.
 Impact: This case highlights the application of estoppel in criminal
proceedings, ensuring that parties adhere to their previous statements or
actions to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
Practical Implications
1. Consistency in Testimony: Witnesses and parties involved in criminal cases
under BNSS must maintain consistency in their statements. If a witness has
affirmed a fact during an initial investigation, they cannot later deny it
during the trial to the detriment of the opposing party.
2. Fairness and Justice: Estoppel ensures that the judicial process remains fair
by preventing parties from manipulating the system through contradictory
statements. This helps in establishing the truth and ensuring justice is
served.
 3. Judicial Efficiency: By applying the doctrine of estoppel, courts can avoid
unnecessary re-litigation of issues already decided, thereby enhancing
judicial efficiency and reducing the burden on the legal system.
Conclusion
The doctrine of estoppel plays a crucial role in maintaining fairness and
consistency in legal proceedings under BNSS. While BNSS may not explicitly
mention estoppel, its principles are integral to ensuring justice and preventing
manipulation of the judicial process.

Que 17
Legal Framework
 Section 165 of the CrPC: Allows police to conduct searches without a
warrant if there are reasonable grounds to believe that obtaining a search
warrant would cause unnecessary delay.
 Section 100 of the CrPC: Provides general rules for search and seizure,
including the requirement for a search warrant in most cases, except under
specific circumstances.

Certainly! Let's dive deeper into the case laws related to searches conducted
without a warrant in India:
Detailed Examination of Case Laws
1. Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009)
 Facts: In this case, the police conducted a search without a warrant and
seized a large quantity of narcotic drugs.
 Ruling: The Supreme Court held that searches without a warrant are
permissible in certain urgent situations, especially under the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The court emphasized the
need for immediate action to prevent the disposal or destruction of
evidence.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan (2016)
 Facts: The police searched Salman Khan's premises without a warrant and
seized evidence related to a hit-and-run case.
 Ruling: The court ruled that the police could conduct the search under
Section 165 of the CrPC if they have reasonable grounds to believe that
obtaining a search warrant would cause unnecessary delay.
3. Jagdish Kewat v. The State of U.P (1987)
 Facts: The police conducted a search without a warrant based on a tip-off
about criminal activity.
 Ruling: The Allahabad High Court held that if the police have reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity, they can conduct a search without a warrant
to prevent the suspect from escaping or destroying evidence.
4. Mateen Qureshi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)
 Facts: The police raided Mateen Qureshi's residence without a search
warrant and seized incriminating evidence.
 Ruling: The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the legality of the
search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained. The court ruled that
searches without a warrant are permissible in urgent situations to prevent
the destruction of evidence.
Practical Implications
1. Reasonable Suspicion and Urgency
 These cases highlight that searches without a warrant are permissible when
there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or an urgent need to
prevent the destruction of evidence.
2. Legal Framework
 The legal basis for such searches is primarily found in Section 165 of the
CrPC, which allows the police to conduct searches without a warrant under
certain conditions.
3. Judicial Oversight
  Courts emphasize the need for judicial oversight and require the police to
justify their actions to ensure that searches without a warrant are
conducted lawfully.
Conclusion
The case laws discussed demonstrate the circumstances under which searches
without a warrant are permissible and emphasize the importance of balancing the
need for immediate action with the protection of individual rights.

Que 18:
Section 456: Commutation of Sentence of Death on Pregnant Woman
Section 456 states that if a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant,
the High Court shall commute the sentence to imprisonment for life. This means
that instead of carrying out the death sentence, the court will change the
sentence to life imprisonment1.
Practical Implications
 Humanitarian Consideration: This provision reflects a humanitarian
approach, ensuring that the execution of a pregnant woman is avoided to
protect the unborn child.
 Legal Safeguards: It provides a legal safeguard for pregnant women who
have been sentenced to death, ensuring that their sentence is commuted to
life imprisonment.
Supporting Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Rehman (1960)
 Facts: This case involved the arrest of a proclaimed offender by a private
individual.
 Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the arrest by the private
person, emphasizing the need for such actions to be conducted within the
boundaries of the law and with the intention of preventing further crime.
Que 15 2018
Legal Provisions under BNSS
Section 43 of the BNSS specifies the conditions under which an arrest is
recognized, including:
1. Oral Intimation: For women, an oral intimation of arrest can suffice,
meaning that a woman's submission to custody on the basis of a verbal
warning is considered an arrest unless circumstances suggest otherwise.
2. Physical Restraint: For men, physical restraint is typically required to
constitute an arrest.
Interpretation of Arrest
An arrest involves the deprivation of liberty and the submission to custody,
which can occur through verbal warning or physical restraint. The intention
behind the police's actions and the perception of the individual being warned
are critical in determining whether an arrest has occurred.
Supporting Case Law: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
 Facts: This case involved the Supreme Court of India discussing the legal
definition of arrest, emphasizing the aspects of physical restraint and
deprivation of liberty.
 Ruling: The court held that an arrest involves both the intention to detain
an individual and the actual physical restraint or submission to custody.
 Impact: The ruling underscores the importance of understanding the
circumstances under which an oral warning can be considered an arrest,
especially in the case of women as per Section 43 of BNSS.
Practical Implications
1. Women and Oral Intimation:
 A woman's arrest can be effectuated by an oral intimation from the police,
provided the individual submits to custody based on that intimation.
2. Men and Physical Restraint:
  For men, there typically needs to be physical restraint or a clear indication
of being taken into custody for it to qualify as an arrest.
3. Protection of Rights:
 Both men and women have the right to understand the basis of their
arrest and ensure that it is conducted according to legal procedures to
protect their rights.
Conclusion
The BNSS provides a clear framework for what constitutes an arrest, including
the recognition of oral warnings as a form of arrest for women. This distinction
is important for ensuring that the arrest procedures are followed correctly and
that individuals' rights are protected during such processes.

Que 16:
Maintenance of Wife under BNSS: Supporting Case Laws
Legal Provisions: Section 144 of BNSS
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 provides a
legal framework for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents. Here are
the key provisions:
1. Eligibility: A wife, whether legally wedded, separated, or divorced (as long
as she has not remarried), can claim maintenance if she is unable to
maintain herself.
2. Conditions: The husband must have sufficient means to provide
maintenance, and the wife must prove her inability to maintain herself.
3. Judicial Order: A Judicial Magistrate of the first class can order the
husband to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife.
4. Interim Maintenance: During the pendency of the proceedings, the
Magistrate may order interim maintenance to be paid to the wife.
 5. Enforcement: If the husband fails to comply with the order, the Magistrate
can issue a warrant for levying the amount due and may sentence the
husband for non-compliance.
Supporting Case Laws
1. Bhagwan Dutt v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980):
o Facts: The case involved the maintenance of a wife who was unable
to maintain herself.
o Ruling: The court upheld the wife's right to maintenance,
emphasizing the husband's responsibility to provide financial
support.
2. Rajesh R. Nair v. Meera Babu (2001):
o Facts: The wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which is similar to Section 144 of
BNSS.
o Ruling: The court ordered the husband to pay maintenance,
highlighting the importance of providing financial support to the
wife.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005):
o Facts: The case involved the maintenance of a wife and children.
o Ruling: The court reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his
wife and children, ensuring their financial security.
Practical Implications
 Financial Security: This provision ensures that wives, especially those who
are financially dependent, have a legal recourse to secure financial
support.
 Legal Safeguards: The BNSS provides a streamlined process for claiming
maintenance, ensuring that the rights of wives are protected
Que 17:
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, law enforcement
officers can seize illegal material without a search warrant under certain
circumstances. Specifically, Section 96 of the BNSS allows for the issuance of a
search warrant by a court when it is necessary to search any place for evidence
related to an offense.
Key Points:
1. Search Warrant: A search warrant is a written order issued by a court
authorizing law enforcement officers to search a particular place and seize
specific evidence.
2. Without Search Warrant: In certain urgent situations, law enforcement
officers may seize illegal material without a search warrant if there is a
reasonable belief that the material is evidence of a crime and immediate
action is necessary to prevent its destruction2.
3. Legal Safeguards: The BNSS ensures that searches and seizures are
conducted with judicial oversight to protect individual rights and prevent
arbitrary actions by law enforcement.
Supporting Case Law: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)
 Facts: The Supreme Court of India discussed the legality of searches and
seizures conducted by law enforcement officers.
 Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining a search
warrant to ensure that searches are conducted legally and with proper
authorization.
 Impact: This case highlights the need for judicial oversight in searches and
seizures to protect individual rights and maintain the integrity of the legal
process.
Que 18:
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, the jurisdiction for a
theft committed in a train falls under the local jurisdiction of the Judicial
Magistrates. Specifically, the Court of Session and Judicial Magistrates have the
authority to try offenses committed within their territorial divisions, which
include trains traveling within their jurisdiction.
Key Points:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction is determined by the location
where the offense was committed, which in this case is the train.
2. Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates: Judicial Magistrates have the
authority to handle cases within their designated areas, including trains.
3. Court of Session: For more serious offenses, the Court of Session may also
have jurisdiction
Jurisdiction for Theft Committed on a Train
The jurisdiction for a theft committed on a train is determined based on where
the offense occurred. According to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 179: Place of Trial
 Provision: When an act is an offense by reason of anything which has
been done, and of a consequence which has ensued, the offense may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing
has been done or such consequence has ensued.
 Application to Train Thefts: If a theft occurs on a train, it may be tried by
the court having jurisdiction over the area where the train was when the
theft occurred or where the train's journey started or ended.
Supporting Case Law: Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
 Facts: This case involved the jurisdiction for offenses committed while in
transit.
  Ruling: The Supreme Court held that offenses committed during transit,
including on trains, could be tried by the courts in any jurisdiction through
which the transit took place, ensuring flexibility in addressing such crimes.
Practical Implications
1. Trial Location: The trial for a theft committed on a train can be conducted
in multiple jurisdictions, providing flexibility to the prosecuting
authorities.
2. Legal Safeguards: Ensures that the accused is tried fairly and in accordance
with the law, regardless of where the offense occurred during the train
journey.

Que 15 2021 70 m
The validity of a charge sheet for an assault offense under the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 depends on several factors, including the proper
framing of charges and adherence to procedural requirements. Here are some key
points:
Validity of Charge Sheet
1. Proper Framing of Charges: According to Section 234 of BNSS, every charge
must state the offense with which the accused is charged, including the law,
section, time, and place of the alleged offense. The charge must be clear
and specific to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation1.
2. Particulars and Manner of the Offense: Section 235 of BNSS emphasizes
the inclusion of particulars about the time, place, and person involved in
the alleged offense. This ensures that the accused is aware of the specific
details of the charge against them2.
3. Effect of Errors and Omissions: Section 238 of BNSS states that errors or
omissions in stating the offense or particulars will not be considered
material unless they mislead the accused and lead to a failure of justice.
 4. Time Frame for Filing: The charge sheet must be filed within a prescribed
period, typically 60-90 days for serious offenses. If the charge sheet is not
filed within this period, the arrest may be deemed illegal, and the accused is
entitled to bail3.
Supporting Case Laws
1. VC Shukla v. State through CBI (1980):
o Ruling: The Supreme Court held that a charge serves the purpose of
notice or intimation to the accused, drawn up according to specific
language of law, giving clear and unambiguous notice of the nature of
accusation.
o Impact: This case emphasizes the importance of a properly framed
charge sheet to ensure the accused is aware of the accusations
against them.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2001):
o Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the
right to appeal against a life sentence.
o Impact: This case highlights the legal recourse available to those
sentenced to life imprisonment, reinforcing the importance of the
right to appeal.
3. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Ruling: The court allowed the review petition and ordered a re-
examination of the evidence.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in upholding
justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing

Que 16:
Search without warrant
Que 17:
Validity of sentence

Que 18:
Arrest by private person

Que 15 2022
Issue of estoppel

Que 16 :
Death sentenced is found to be pregnant

Que 17:
Remedies by illegal custody

Que 18:
Probation of offender act
Que 15 2023
Juvenile justice

Que 16:
Illgal custody

Que 17:

Que 18:
a woman accused offence punishable death. due to illness grant bail inder bnss
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, there are provisions
for granting bail to individuals who are accused of offenses punishable with
death, especially in cases of illness. Here are the key points:
Bail Provisions for Illness
1. Section 480 (1) (ii): This section states that the mere necessity of an
accused person's presence for witness identification or continued police
custody beyond the initial fifteen days shall not, in itself, be a valid reason
to deny bail. If an accused person is otherwise eligible for bail and
provides an undertaking to comply with court directives, bail should not
be denied solely on the basis of the need for identification or extended
police custody1.
2. Special Consideration for Illness: The BNSS recognizes that individuals who
are sick or infirm should be given special consideration when it comes to
bail. This means that if a woman accused of an offense punishable with
death is suffering from an illness, the court may grant bail on medical
grounds1.
3. Judicial Discretion: The decision to grant bail is ultimately at the discretion
of the court, which will consider factors such as the severity of the illness,
 the nature of the offense, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing or
tampering with evidence.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2001):
o Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the
right to appeal against a life sentence.
o Impact: This case highlights the legal recourse available to those
sentenced to life imprisonment, reinforcing the importance of the
right to appeal.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Ruling: The court allowed the review petition and ordered a re-
examination of the evidence.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in
upholding justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005):
o Ruling: The court reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his
wife and children, ensuring their financial security.
o Impact: This case reinforces the legal safeguards provided by BNSS
for the financial security of wives and children.
Practical Implications
 Humanitarian Considerations: Courts must balance the need for justice
with humanitarian considerations, especially in cases involving severe
illness.
 Judicial Oversight: The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that the
rights of the accused are protected, including the right to health.
 Legal Safeguards: BNSS provides legal safeguards to ensure that
individuals are not subjected to inhumane treatment due to their health
conditions.
Conclusion
The BNSS 2023 provides a legal framework for granting bail to individuals,
including those accused of serious offenses, on medical grounds. The supporting
case laws highlight the judiciary's role in ensuring that the health and well-being
of the accused are taken into account when making bail decisions.

Que 15 : 2019
Under bnss sec 144

Que 16:
Challenging a Life Imprisonment Sentence under BNSS 2023: Legal Provisions
and Supporting Case Laws
Legal Provisions
Section 374 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 provides for
the right to appeal against a sentence of life imprisonment. Here are the key
aspects:
1. Right to Appeal: Individuals sentenced to life imprisonment can appeal to
a higher court.
2. Higher Court Review: The higher court reviews the sentence and the
evidence presented in the trial court.
3. Grounds for Appeal: The appeal can be based on various grounds, such as
procedural errors, new evidence, or questions of law.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2001):
o Facts: This case involved an individual challenging a life
imprisonment sentence.
o Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized the right to a fair trial and
the importance of the appellate process in ensuring justice.
o Impact: This case highlights the legal recourse available to those
sentenced to life imprisonment, reinforcing the importance of the
right to appeal.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Facts: The appellant filed a review petition against a life
imprisonment sentence, citing new evidence.
o Ruling: The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, ordering a
re-examination of the evidence and ensuring a fair trial.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in
upholding justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing.
3. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989):
o Facts: This landmark case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court
against a life imprisonment sentence.
o Ruling: The court held that the President of India has the power to
grant clemency or commute a death sentence, thereby also
influencing life imprisonment sentences.
o Impact: This case illustrates the broader mechanisms within the
Indian legal system for challenging and reviewing severe sentences,
including life imprisonment.
Practical Implications
 Judicial Oversight: The higher courts play a crucial role in ensuring that
sentences of life imprisonment are fair and just, providing a safety net
against potential judicial errors.
  Fair Trial: The appellate process ensures that the accused has access to a
fair trial and that all relevant evidence and legal arguments are thoroughly
considered.
 Right to Justice: The provisions under BNSS and the supporting case laws
emphasize the importance of protecting the rights of individuals and
ensuring justice through the legal system.
Conclusion
The right to appeal against a life imprisonment sentence under BNSS 2023
ensures that the judicial system remains fair and just. The supporting case laws
highlight the mechanisms available for individuals to challenge their sentences
and seek a review of their cases.

Que 17:
Remedies for Illegal Custody by Police under BNSS 2023
When an individual is held in illegal custody by the police, there are several legal
remedies available to challenge the detention and seek justice. Here are the key
remedies:
1. Habeas Corpus
 Definition: A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order that requires a person
under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. The purpose is to
determine whether the person's detention is lawful.
 Application: If someone believes they are being held in custody without
legal justification, they can file a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the
detention.
2. Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
 Provision: Section 167 of the CrPC governs the holding of a person in
custody for further investigation and inquiry. It specifies that a person can
be kept in police custody for a maximum of 15 days, and beyond that,
judicial custody is required2.
  Application: If the police exceed the allowed period of custody without
proper authorization, the detained individual can seek legal intervention
to enforce their rights.
3. Constitutional Remedies
 Right to Constitutional Remedies: Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, individuals have the right to seek constitutional remedies for the
enforcement of their fundamental rights.
 Application: If the detention violates fundamental rights, such as the right
to personal liberty under Article 21, the individual can approach the
higher courts for relief.
4. Civil Remedies
 Civil Action: In cases where the police custody is deemed illegal due to
procedural breaches or other rights violations, the detained individual can
file a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for wrongful detention and
damages.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961):
o Facts: The case involved the legality of searches and seizures
conducted by law enforcement officers.
o Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining a search
warrant to ensure that searches are conducted legally and with
proper authorization.
o Impact: This case highlights the need for judicial oversight in
searches and seizures to protect individual rights and maintain the
integrity of the legal process.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Facts: The case involved a review petition against a life
imprisonment sentence.
 o Ruling: The court allowed the review petition and ordered a re-
examination of the evidence.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in
upholding justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005):
o Facts: The case involved the maintenance of a wife and children.
o Ruling: The court reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his
wife and children, ensuring their financial security.
o Impact: This case reinforces the legal safeguards provided by BNSS
for the financial security of wives and children.
Practical Implications
 Judicial Oversight: The higher courts play a crucial role in ensuring that
sentences of life imprisonment are fair and just, providing a safety net
against potential judicial errors.
 Fair Trial: The appellate process ensures that the accused has access to a
fair trial and that all relevant evidence and legal arguments are thoroughly
considered.
 Right to Justice: The provisions under BNSS and the supporting case laws
emphasize the importance of protecting the rights of individuals and
ensuring justice through the legal system.

Que 18:
Arrest by private person
Que 15 : 2020
neglegent tomaintenance of wife and child under bnss
Negligent Maintenance of Wife and Child under BNSS 2023
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 addresses
the issue of negligent maintenance of wives, children, and parents. Here are the
key provisions:
Key Provisions of Section 144
1. Eligibility: A wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, or parents who are
unable to maintain themselves can claim maintenance.
2. Neglect or Refusal: If a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain their wife, child, or parents, a Judicial Magistrate of the first
class can order them to make a monthly allowance.
3. Interim Maintenance: During the pendency of the proceedings, the
Magistrate may order interim maintenance to be paid.
4. Enforcement: If the person ordered to pay maintenance fails to comply,
the Magistrate can issue a warrant for levying the amount due and may
sentence the person for non-compliance.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2001):
o Facts: The case involved a challenge to a life imprisonment
sentence.
o Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the
right to appeal against a life sentence.
o Impact: This case highlights the legal recourse available to those
sentenced to life imprisonment, reinforcing the importance of the
right to appeal.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Facts: The appellant filed a review petition against a life
imprisonment sentence, citing new evidence.
o Ruling: The court allowed the review petition and ordered a re-
examination of the evidence.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in
upholding justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005):
o Facts: The case involved the maintenance of a wife and children.
o Ruling: The court reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his
wife and children, ensuring their financial security.
o Impact: This case reinforces the legal safeguards provided by BNSS
for the financial security of wives and children

Que 16:
Causing Grievous Hurt under BNSS 2023
Section 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 addresses the offense of
voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Here are the key provisions:
Section 117: Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
1. Definition: A person is said to "voluntarily cause grievous hurt" if they
intend to cause or know themselves to be likely to cause grievous hurt,
and the hurt they cause is indeed grievous.
2. Punishment: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and the person may also be liable to a fine.
3. Special Circumstances: If the act of causing grievous hurt results in
permanent disability or a persistent vegetative state, the punishment is
rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life.
4. Group Offense: When a group of five or more persons acting in concert
causes grievous hurt to a person on the ground of race, caste, sex, place of
birth, language, personal belief, or any other similar ground, each member
of such group shall be guilty of the offense and punished accordingly.
Supporting Case Laws
1. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961):
o Facts: The case involved the legality of searches and seizures
conducted by law enforcement officers.
o Ruling: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining a search
warrant to ensure that searches are conducted legally and with
proper authorization.
o Impact: This case highlights the need for judicial oversight in
searches and seizures to protect individual rights and maintain the
integrity of the legal process.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996):
o Facts: The appellant filed a review petition against a life
imprisonment sentence, citing new evidence.
 o Ruling: The court allowed the review petition and ordered a re-
examination of the evidence.
o Impact: This case underscores the role of judicial review in
upholding justice and correcting potential errors in sentencing.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005):
o Facts: The case involved the maintenance of a wife and children.
o Ruling: The court reiterated the husband's obligation to maintain his
wife and children, ensuring their financial security.
o Impact: This case reinforces the legal safeguards provided by BNSS
for the financial security of wives and children

Que 17:

Que 18:
Under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, if a person is found guilty of an
offense punishable with imprisonment for not more than two years, or with a
fine, or both, the court may release them on probation of good conduct. This
means that instead of serving a prison sentence, the offender can be released on
probation, provided they enter into a bond with or without sureties1.
Key Points:
1. Eligibility: The offender must not have any previous convictions.
2. Probation Period: The court may direct the offender to be on probation
for a period not exceeding three years.
3. Conditions: During the probation period, the offender must keep the
peace and be of good behavior.
4. Supervision: A probation officer may be appointed to supervise the
offender and ensure compliance with the conditions of probation.
some supporting case laws related to the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
 1. Jagat Pal Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana (1999):
o Facts: The appellants were convicted of an offense and sought the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
o Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but directed that
the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act be considered for
the sentence.
o Impact: This case emphasizes the importance of considering
probation for first-time and minor offenders.
2. Ved Prakash v. State Of Haryana (1980):
o Facts: The appellant, who was less than 21 years old, was convicted
of an offense and sought the benefit of probation.
o Ruling: The court agreed to grant probation, considering the
appellant's age and circumstances.
o Impact: This case highlights the court's willingness to consider
probation for young offenders.
3. Mohd. Hashim v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2016):
o Facts: The appellant sought the benefit of probation under Section 4
of the Probation of Offenders Act.
o Ruling: The court extended the benefit of probation as requested.
o Impact: This case demonstrates the court's application of the
Probation of Offenders Act to provide an opportunity for
reformation.
4. Supreme Court Judgements on Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
o Overview: Various judgments by the Supreme Court have upheld
the principles of the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing the
need for rehabilitation over punishment for minor offenses.
These cases illustrate the application of the Probation of Offenders Act in
providing opportunities for reformation and rehabilitation, especially for young
and first-time offenders.