Question

Consider the following statements: (I) The application of judicial mind is not necessary to issue a warrant by the court. (II) The constitutional notion demands the application of judicial mind immediately after the arrest of person without a warrant. Choose the correct answer from the code given below.

• A. Both (I) and (II) are true.
• B. Both (I) and (II) are untrue.
• C. (I) is true and (II) is untrue.
• D. (II) is true and (I) is untrue.
• A. With
• B. Without
• C. With or without
• D. On execution of
• A. Detenu who at the time of arrest is an enemy alien.
• B. Arrest under any law providing for preventive detention.
• C. Arrest under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• D. Arrest in execution of warrant issued by the court.
• A. Police Custody.
• B. Judicial Custody.
• C. Both Police Custody and Judicial Custody.
• D. Other than Police and Judicial Custody.
• A. The order of house arrest was not purported to be under Section 167 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• B. The court is not authorized to order house arrest under Section 167 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• C. The order of house arrest was illegal.
• D. The term ‘house arrest’ was not given anywhere under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• A. Unconstitutional.
• B. Within the competence of the court under Section 167 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• C. Beyond the competence of the court under Section 167 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• D. Discretionary.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Judicial mind in issuing warrants.
Issuing a warrant is a judicial act — it necessarily requires the application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances before depriving a person of liberty. Thus, statement (I) is incorrect.
Step 2: Judicial mind after arrest without warrant.
As per Gautam Navlakha v. NIA, when arrest occurs without a warrant, Article 22(2) of the Constitution requires the arrested person to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours. This ensures immediate application of judicial mind to validate the arrest. Hence, statement (II) is correct.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct combination is that (II) is true and (I) is untrue. \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]

Answer 2

This question pairs two statements about when judicial mind must be applied to an arrest, so each statement needs to be tested on its own before combining them into the right code.

1. Statement (I): Claims that issuing a warrant does not require application of judicial mind. Issuing a warrant is itself a judicial act carried out by a court, and a court cannot issue one without considering the facts placed before it, so this statement misdescribes what issuing a warrant involves.
2. Statement (II): Claims that the constitutional scheme requires judicial mind to be applied immediately after a warrantless arrest. Because an arrest without a warrant happens without any prior judicial scrutiny, the requirement to produce the arrested person before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours exists precisely to bring judicial oversight into the picture at the earliest possible point.

Testing the two statements independently shows that statement (I) inverts the true position on warrants and is untrue, while statement (II) accurately reflects the constitutional safeguard attached to warrantless arrests and is true.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option D: (II) is true and (I) is untrue.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding Section 57 CrPC.
Section 57 mandates that a person arrested without a warrant shall not be detained for more than 24 hours without being produced before a Magistrate.
Step 2: Reason for restriction.
This provision ensures quick judicial scrutiny of warrantless arrests, which inherently lack prior judicial approval.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, Section 57 applies specifically to arrests without a warrant.
\[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 4

Section 57 of the CrPC is directed at a specific category of arrest, so the blank needs to be filled by checking what triggers the twenty-four-hour production requirement it imposes.

1. Option A: With would mean the section applies to arrests made under a warrant. An arrest under a warrant already has judicial scrutiny built in at the point the warrant is issued, so there is less need for the same urgent twenty-four-hour safeguard that Section 57 provides.
2. Option B: Without fits the section's purpose precisely, since an arrest made without a warrant happens without any prior judicial check, and Section 57 exists to compel prompt production before a Magistrate to supply that missing scrutiny quickly.
3. Option C: With or without would extend the section to warrant arrests as well, but the twenty-four-hour urgency is specifically tied to the absence of prior judicial involvement, so this overextends the section's reach.
4. Option D: On execution of describes the act of carrying out a warrant, which is a different concept from the category of arrest the section is drafted to cover.

Because Section 57's function is to make up for the judicial scrutiny missing from a warrantless arrest, filling the blank with without is the only option that matches its purpose.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B.

Answer 5

Step 1: Scope of Article 22(2).
Article 22(2) requires that a person arrested without a warrant be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Section 41 CrPC empowers police to arrest without a warrant in certain cases.
Step 2: Exclusions.
Enemy aliens (A) and preventive detention (B) are governed by special rules under Article 22(3). Arrests in execution of warrants (D) already have judicial mind applied before arrest, so Article 22(2)’s safeguard is less relevant.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The requirement under Article 22(2) applies to arrests under Section 41 CrPC. \[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 6

Article 22(2) is targeted at a particular kind of arrest, so each option needs to be checked against the class of arrests this safeguard was designed to reach.

1. Option A: An enemy alien detained at the time of arrest falls under the special exclusions carved out elsewhere in Article 22, which withdraw ordinary procedural protections in that specific situation, so this arrest is not the one Article 22(2) is meant to cover.
2. Option B: Arrests under laws providing for preventive detention are governed by a separate constitutional track, with their own safeguards, and are expressly carved out from the ordinary production requirement, so this too falls outside Article 22(2)'s coverage.
3. Option C: An arrest under Section 41 CrPC is a warrantless arrest made by police on their own assessment of the facts, without any prior judicial involvement, which is exactly the situation where Article 22(2)'s twenty-four-hour production requirement supplies the missing judicial check.
4. Option D: An arrest made in execution of a court's warrant already carries the judicial mind that was applied when the warrant was issued, so the additional protection Article 22(2) is built for has comparatively less work to do there.

Since enemy aliens and preventive detention are carved out under separate constitutional provisions, and warrant arrests already carry prior judicial application of mind, it is the ordinary warrantless arrest under Section 41 CrPC that squarely attracts Article 22(2)'s protection.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option C.

Answer 7

Step 1: Understanding Section 167 CrPC.
Section 167 CrPC deals with situations where investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It empowers the Magistrate to authorise detention beyond the initial period.
Step 2: Types of custody.
The law recognises two types of custody during investigation — Police Custody (detention in the custody of the investigating agency) and Judicial Custody (detention in jail under the orders of the court).
Step 3: Magistrate’s power.
A Judicial Magistrate may authorise either police custody or judicial custody, subject to statutory time limits under Section 167(2).
Step 4: Conclusion.
Thus, the Magistrate is empowered to authorise both types of custody.
\[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]

Answer 8

This question tests the scope of custody a Judicial Magistrate may order under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when a police investigation cannot be finished within twenty four hours.

1. Police Custody: Section 167(2) permits a Magistrate to remand an accused to police custody, but only for the first fifteen days from the date of production, and that too on a case being made out for further interrogation. This is one of the two forms of detention the section allows, not the complete answer by itself.
2. Judicial Custody: The same sub-section also allows the Magistrate to send the accused to judicial custody, that is, to jail under the court's own authority, either from the outset or after the initial police-custody period ends. Again, this covers only half of what the provision actually authorises.
3. Both Police Custody and Judicial Custody: Reading Section 167(2) as a whole, the Magistrate's remand power is not confined to one form of detention. It expressly contemplates police custody up to fifteen days and judicial custody for the remaining permissible period, up to sixty or ninety days depending on the offence, so the power covers both kinds of custody.
4. Other than Police and Judicial Custody: Section 167 recognises only these two categories of detention during investigation. There is no third, undefined form of custody contemplated by the provision, so this option finds no support in the text of the section.

Since Section 167(2) gives the Magistrate authority over both forms of detention rather than just one, the option describing both police and judicial custody fits the language of the provision.

So, the correct answer is Both Police Custody and Judicial Custody.

Answer 9

Step 1: Context from case law.
In Gautam Navlakha, the Supreme Court examined whether house arrest time could be counted towards custody under Section 167 CrPC for default bail calculation.
Step 2: Reasoning of the Court.
The Court noted that the house arrest in this case had not been ordered under Section 167 CrPC. Since Section 167 governs authorised detention during investigation, custody under its ambit is required to count towards default bail.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Because the house arrest order was not under Section 167, that period was excluded from custody calculation. \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]

Answer 10

The issue here is why the Supreme Court refused to add Gautam Navlakha's period of house arrest to his period of custody while deciding his default bail application.

1. The order of house arrest was not purported to be under Section 167 CrPC: The house arrest in his case flowed from an interim protective order the High Court passed in habeas corpus proceedings, not from a remand order passed by a Magistrate exercising power under Section 167. Since only detention ordered under Section 167 counts towards the default bail clock, this period stood outside that count.
2. The court is not authorized to order house arrest under Section 167: This goes further than what the Court actually held. The Court did not rule that house arrest can never be ordered under Section 167, it simply found that, on the facts, this particular order was not made under that provision.
3. The order of house arrest was illegal: Nothing in the judgment brands the house arrest order itself as illegal. It was a valid protective order in its own right, just not one issued under Section 167, so illegality was never the ground for excluding it.
4. The term 'house arrest' was not given anywhere under the CrPC: The absence of the phrase from the statute book is true as a general observation, but it was not the reason the Court gave for excluding this specific period from the custody calculation.

The exclusion turned entirely on the source of the order, since it had not been passed under Section 167, it could not be treated as custody for computing the ninety day period.

So, the correct answer is the order of house arrest was not purported to be under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Answer 11

Step 1: Legal position clarified by the Court.
The Supreme Court in Gautam Navlakha held that in appropriate cases, courts may order house arrest under Section 167 CrPC.
Step 2: Rationale.
The Court interpreted the term “custody” in Section 167 broadly to include house arrest, provided it meets the conditions of detention and judicial authorisation.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, such an order is within the competence of the court under Section 167 CrPC. \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]

Answer 12

This question asks how the Supreme Court characterised a court's power to direct house arrest of an accused person under Section 167 CrPC.

1. Unconstitutional: The Court did not strike down house arrest as violating any constitutional guarantee, so this characterisation does not match the ruling.
2. Within the competence of the court under Section 167: The Court read the word "custody" in Section 167 broadly enough to include house arrest as one of the forms of detention a Magistrate can direct, provided the safeguards of that section are followed. This places house arrest squarely within the Magistrate's remand powers.
3. Beyond the competence of the court under Section 167: This is the opposite of the Court's actual finding. Had the power been beyond the court's competence, house arrest could never be ordered under this section at all.
4. Discretionary: While a Magistrate does exercise some discretion in choosing the form of custody, describing the power merely as "discretionary" does not capture the Court's specific holding that such an order falls within the court's competence under Section 167.

By reading "custody" expansively, the Court placed house arrest orders within the powers a Magistrate already has under Section 167, rather than treating them as ultra vires or unconstitutional.

So, the correct answer is within the competence of the court under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.