Part B

1. Scope of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code1:

Section 313 of CrPC infers duty upon the court to examine the accused person. The basic purpose of this
section is to provide accuse a chance to justify his position in the circumstances mentioned in evidence
provided by prosecution against him. This section has proven to be of great help in situations where
accused is undefended as well as it provides help to those accused who are ignorant and uneducated, who
have difficulty in understanding the facts of alleged offense.
Section 313 of CrPC is inspired by Principle of natural justice “Audi Alteram Partem” which means no
one should be condemned unheard.2 It is also based on the fact that accused is innocent till proven guilty.
Herein, accused is given a chance to explain himself for the evidence presented by prosecution against
him. The object of examination of accused under section 313 CrPC was reiterated in Sanatan Naskar &
Another vs. State of West Bengal3 is to create a direct communication between accused and court. In other
words objective of this section is to grant accused an opportunity to explain circumstances with respect to
every evidence held against him.
In Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), the scope of this section to examine the accused is not limited to any
specific stage of an inquiry or trial. It is expanded to all stages and says that “court may at any stage,
without a previous warning can call upon accused for examination”. 4 Herein, the word ‘may’ is
mentioned which means, if court finds it necessary under special circumstances and facts of case, it can
call accused for examination under this section at any stage.5
In clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the scope of this section is narrowed down to particular stages. It reads as
“Court shall after the witness for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his
defense, question him generally on the case.” Which means in general circumstances, court should call
accused only after the prosecution has presented all its evidence and before the attorney of accused is
called for his defense. The use of the word ‘shall’ in this clause is to specify the obligatory nature of this
section.
Proviso given in this section mentions that this section is not obligatory in summon cases if the accused is
discharged from appearing in the court he may be discharged from examination under clause (b). This
proviso, in general circumstances limits the scope of this section only to warrant cases and does not
expand it to summon cases. But in exceptional circumstances, this proviso can be discharged and accused
can be called personally in court for the purpose of examination.6

1
Hereafter CrPC, .
2
Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code: Power to examine the accused., ,
https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/313%20paper%20presentationamd.pdf.
3
Sanatan Naskar & Another vs. State of West Bengal, , AIR 3507 (2010).
4
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, .
5
SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED, ,
https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/Workshop-II%20Material%202.pdf.
6
Id.
Sub-section (5) expands the scope of preparing questions for examination of accused under this section to
public prosecutor and defense council as well and does not restrict it only to court.
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that in general circumstances, scope of examination of
accused under Section 313 of CrPC is limited to a particular stage i.e., after prosecution has completed its
presentation of evidence and before defense is called also this section is limited only to warrant cases
however, some exceptions are provided for special circumstances.

Part A
Question no. 3
Applicant Laddoo Singh in the present case has approached Sessions Court, Delhi for an anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of CrPC during investigation is in progress and requested protection from arrest for the
alleged theft committed under section 379 read with section 34 of IPC and alleged murder committed
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, providing the reason that he suffers from multiple health
conditions that might increase his risk for COVID-19.

Objective of granting anticipatory bail by superior courts is to release the person, who has a reason to
believe that he may be arrested, even before he is arrested.7 It is considered necessary as sometimes, rivals
of a person try to frame him with a false accusation against him which might put him in detention for no
fault of his own. Thus, the provision for anticipatory bail is brought to protect such person from detention
for a crime he didn’t commit.8

An anticipatory bail can only be granted to those people who have a reason to believe they might be
arrested for committing a non-bailable offence and herein, Laddoo Singh has applied for an anticipatory
bail for offence under Section 302 IPC i.e., Murder, which prima facie is a non-bailable offence also
Theft under Section 379, which is also prima facie a non-bailable offence. Another requisite for eligibility
for applying for an anticipatory bail is reasonable apprehension of arrest. In Suresh Vasudeva vs. State9,
court held that registration of an FIR of the alleged offence for which anticipatory bail is applied is not an
important condition for applying for an anticipatory bail. Moreover, in Gurubaksh Singh Sibba vs. State
of Punjab,10 it was made clear that, mere apprehension that he is likely to be arrested for an offence and a
reasonable belief is sufficient to apply for anticipatory bail even though when FIR has not been registered.
Herein, the FIR for the alleged offence has already been registered at the station of Sonipat, Haryana and
thus it can be conferred that Laddoo Singh might have a reason to believe that he may be arrested for
alleged theft and murder. Taking into account the above discussion, it is clear that Laddoo Singh is
eligible to file an application for anticipatory bail.
7
K.N. CHANDRASHEKHARAN PILLAI, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (6 ed.).
8
41ST REPORT OF LAW COMMISSION, .
9
Suresh Vasudeva vs. State, , Cri LJ 677 (1978).
10
Gurubaksh Singh Sibba vs. State of Punjab, , 2 SCC 565 (1980).
In Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab,11 question before the court was whether one can file an application
for anticipatory bail in a court of different jurisdiction than the police station where FIR of the offence has
been registered. The court held the order in affirmative. It reiterated that High court or Sessions court can
entertain the application of anticipatory bail even if the place where FIR is registered falls under different
jurisdiction. Thus, Sessions court of Delhi can entertain application of anticipatory bail by Laddoo Singh
even though the FIR is registered with police station that falls under jurisdiction of Sonipat, Haryana
sessions court.

Moreover, Certain conditions are required to be considered as accorded in Sub-section (1) of Section 438
of CrPC for grant of an anticipatory bail wherein one of the most important conditions being the nature
and gravity of offence. Herein, applicant is found to be applying for an anticipatory bail for alleged theft
and murder in broad daylight, which prima facie confirms that the offence was of a grievous nature.
Furthermore, Sub-section (1) says that there must be a reason to believe that he may be arrested for false
accusations framed against him with the purpose to injure and humiliate him by hurting his reputation.
Herein, nothing has been mentioned that could provide a clarity that someone might have an intention to
hurt his reputation. Taking into account grievous nature of offence, one cannot be allowed to take an
undue advantage of Section 438 in order to be released from arrest without confirming the intention of
someone to frame the applicant.

48th Law Commission report also mentions that court cannot exercise its power to grant anticipatory bail
before arrest until exceptional circumstances are proved.12 Herein, the applicant thinks COVID-19 is an
exceptional circumstance which may result in his death as he suffers from several co-morbidities and as a
result of poor health, he might contract COVID-19. This reason to receive an anticipatory bail can be
backed by Prateek Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh13, wherein, Allahabad High court granted an
anticipatory bail to the accused stating that COVID-19 is an exceptional circumstance wherein, fear of
death can be seen as a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused. It stated that even though the
allegations against the accused may be serious but it is the presumed as per principles of natural justice
that accused is innocent until proven guilty and under current circumstances with increasing number of
COVID-19 cases, it won’t be fair to put him into custody for something that is not proven to be done by
him. It further said that COVID-19 might result in death and by not allowing anticipatory bail to the
applicant, it may take away his right to life under Article 21 of the constitution. This judgement of
Allahabad high court was challenged in Supreme Court by State of U.P which ordered stay on this
judgement and said that court should not use this judgement as a precedent while dealing with other cases

11
Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab, , Cri LJ 1174 (1980).
12
48TH REPORT OF LAW COMMISSION, .
13
Prateek Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, , 5 ICL 570 (2021).
of anticipatory bail in current circumstances and such a decision to grant anticipatory bail in current
situations should only be made based on the merits of each case.14

Outbreak of COVID-19 has affected everyone in this country and I agree that special precautionary
measures should be taken to protect accused from contracting the virus knowing these are exceptional
circumstances but granting anticipatory bail to everyone would only allow other criminals to use this
ground to take undue advantage of law. In my opinion, one should keep exceptional circumstances in
view but one should not turn a blind eye to facts, circumstances and nature of offence. Herein, alleged
offence is murder which is an offence of grievous nature. Hence, I believe applicant must not be granted
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.

This anticipatory bail application by Laddoo Singh is being rejected on account of absence of reasonable
circumstances to believe apprehension of false accusation and keeping in mind the grievous nature of
offence as given under Section 438 of CrPC. Moreover, It won’t be rational to grant an anticipatory bail
to someone who has a reason to believe he might be arrested for an offence committed amidst COVID-19
outbreak and yet fears of death due to same outbreak. Thus, providing investigation authority with right to
arrest said person without an arrest warrant for alleged murder being a cognizable offence. If later said
person is found guilty he will be convicted as per the relevant sections of the law, irrespective of his co-
morbidities or poor health.

The anticipatory bail application is Rejected.

14
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR vs. PRATEEK JAIN & ANR., , SCOR 16243 (2021).
PART A
Question no. 1
To determine the powers rested in the hands of police officers with respect to the procedure for
investigation of any offence, it is necessary to identify the nature of offences. In cases where offences are
of a serious nature with punishment of imprisonment not less than three years, such offences are termed
as cognizable offences. Section 2 (c) of CrPC says that offence for which a police officer may arrest
without a warrant are cognizable offences. According to CrPC, Murder and theft, both fall under the
category of cognizable offences. Thus, the procedure for investigation of cognizable offence must be
followed.

In Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P, Supreme Court held that when a cognizable offence is
committed and it is informed to a police officer, under Section 154 (1) CrPC, it is the duty of such police
officer to register the case on the basis of information disclosed to him. Thus, Section 154(1) is a
mandatory provision. Information related to such offence must be definite and not vague, but the
information does not need to be qualified as reasonable to be eligible for registration as an FIR. 15 In the
given case, Mr. Walter informed the police station on a phone call, about an unusual activity that he
believes is a theft and provided detailed description of persons as well their activity, to which SHO
records the statement in a general diary and didn’t register an FIR. The question here is, whether an
information given to police official on a phone call can be registered as FIR? Similar question was dealt
in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala16, where court held that a phone call without complete information or
with part information about commission of an offence cannot be treated as an FIR. In other words, for an
information provided over a phone call to be treated as an FIR, it should be specific with respect to
offence. It is quite evident from the facts that Mr. Walter provided a detailed information which should be
treated as an FIR but the police officer didn’t register it as an FIR.

After an FIR of a cognizable offence is registered, officer in charge of police station can start its
investigation on spot without the order of a magistrate for under Section 156 (1) CrPC. When an
investigation is initiated under Section 156 of CrPC, a report is to be sent to magistrate immediately by
officer incharge of station under Section 157 (1) CrPC, in order to take cognizance of such offence and to
keep magistrate informed about status and progress of investigation. Section 158 (1) provides that report
mentioned under section 157, must be submitted to magistrate through superior officer of police or any
other officer appointed on his behalf without delay. Facts in the current case, do not mention any report
sent to magistrate regarding status of investigation not through superior officer nor through any other
officer. Although such a delay or omission of submission of report to magistrate do not form a ground to
throw away prosecution’s case but it may be seen as objectionable.

15
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P, , 7 SCC 164 (SC).
16
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, , 6 SCC 181 (2001).
Furthermore, SHO recorded the information provided by Mr. Walter in a general diary which does not
comply with Section 172 CrPC, which states that every police officer making an investigation should
enter proceedings of an investigation every day in a case diary which should contain time at which he
started such investigation and when he closed it, places visited by him, and statements collected during
investigation. Such a diary is considered necessary for protection of public against criminals. In Haji
Mohammed vs The State Rep.17 ,court specified that general diary is not same as case diary. In the current
situation information provided by Mr. Walter should have been written in a case diary and not general
diary.

At the time of investigation, police officers found a dead body in the bedroom of the said flat, they also
found that the whole house was turned upside down and several electronics were missing. At the
discovery of a new offence SHO ordered constables to question and examine if anyone witnessed the
crime. Under Section 161 (1) only officer in charge or any police officer not below such rank should
examine the witness. Sub-section (3) provides that a true record of the statement must be maintained
separately, when such an examination is reduced to writing. Herein, few flaws have been observed while
the statement of guard was recorded under said section. Firstly, Constables and SHO do not fall under the
same rank thus, constables do not have an authority under said section to examine the witness. Moreover,
it is necessary to maintain a separate record of such statement, which constables failed to do herein.

Furthermore, not only constables took statement of security guard, but they also registered it as an FIR
and gave the copy of such FIR to security guard. Under Section 154 (2) copy of an FIR should be given to
informant. Herein, information of the commission of offence is provided by Mr. Walter, thus making him
the informant also here in this case, security guard was questioned as a witness and not as an informant.
Also, FIR means first information report, name itself suggests that it contains details as to offence with
respect to the information that was disclosed firstly after commission of such offence. It is evident from
the facts that it was not the first-time police officer heard about the occurrence of this event which makes
it incorrect to treat a witness as an informant as well as ask him to sign it and provide him with the copy.

During investigation, SHO recorded a detailed statement of Dr. Walter and later asked him to sign his
statement, Section 162 says that no statement made by any person, if reduced to writing should be signed
by such person. It is necessary to protect the accused against police officers and non-trustworthy
witnesses, as this section is based on the assumption that police officers cannot be trusted for recording
statement. In Sat Paul v Delhi Administration18, court explained that statement made to police shall not be
used for corroboration if evidence, but it is rather used to contradict such witness in the manner provided

17
Haji Mohammed Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. Writ Petition No. 22160 Of 2011, .
18
Sat Paul v Delhi Administration, , AIR 294 (1976).
in section 145 of Evidence act. In State of U.P vs M.K Anthony 19, court clarified that even if during an
investigation police officers obtain signature of such witness, it doesn’t make it inadmissible in court, it
puts the court on caution and in such cases, court may ask for an in-depth examination of such statement.

Herein, it is observed that most of the investigation has been conducted by constables, under section 168
of CrPC, it is the duty of subordinates to send a report of investigation made by him to a officer incharge.
Constables in the above-mentioned case didn’t send any such report to the officer incharge and thus we
can say that they didn’t comply with section 168 of CrPC.

Taking into account above discussion, it can be concluded that while performing an investigation in thw
above-mentioned case, Police officers may not have taken undue advantage of their powers, but it was
found that number of mistakes and flaws were found in procedure of investigation in this case with
respect to the provisions mentioned under CrPC.

19
State of U.P vs M.K Anthony, , AIR 48 (1985).