Powers and Duties of the Police; Investigation (ss.174–193 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Powers and Duties of the Police; Investigation (ss.174–193 BNSS)

Between the FIR and the charge-sheet lies the least visible but most decisive stage of a criminal case: the investigation. Here the police visit the scene, question witnesses, arrest suspects, seize evidence — and where they cannot finish in 24 hours, they must go back to a Magistrate to keep the accused in custody. Two exam traps live in this stage: the open-ended remand and the woman-witness proviso.

A police officer receiving information of a cognizable offence may investigate without a Magistrate’s order (s.175 [s.156 CrPC]). The investigation flows through these powers:

A. Powers during investigation

Attendance of witnesses (s.179 [s.160 CrPC]). The officer may require any person acquainted with the facts to attend and answer. Proviso — the trap: a male under 15 or over 60, a woman, a person with a mental or physical disability, or one with an acute illness shall not be required to attend anywhere other than the place where he/she resides.
Examination and statements (s.180 [s.161 CrPC]). The officer may examine witnesses orally; the statement, if reduced to writing, is signed by no one and is usable only to contradict the witness later (Evidence law). Grave-offence statements may be audio-video recorded under the BNSS.
Confession before a Magistrate (s.183 [s.164 CrPC]). A confession or statement must be recorded by a Magistrate, who must warn the maker that it may be used against him and must record it in the prescribed manner. A confession to the police is not provable.
Search (ss.185, 103 [ss.165, 100 CrPC]). An officer may search a place if he has reasonable grounds; the BNSS requires videography of the search and seizure.
Report on completion — charge-sheet (s.193 [s.173 CrPC]). On completing investigation the officer files a police report (charge-sheet) before the Magistrate; a fresh report on new evidence (further investigation) is expressly allowed.

B. Remand when investigation is not completed in 24 hours (s.187 [s.167 CrPC])

If investigation cannot finish in 24 hours, the accused is produced before a Magistrate, who may authorise detention. Each remand order must be for a stated period and may not exceed 15 days at a time in Magistrate’s custody; total detention is capped at 60 days (offences punishable up to 10 years) or 90 days (offences punishable with death, life, or ≥ 10 years), after which the accused is entitled to default bail (see 2.12).

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the “till further orders” remand

Facts. A court authorises the Superintendent of the District Jail to detain the accused “till further orders”.

Rule. Under s.187 BNSS a remand must be for a specified period (not exceeding 15 days at a time); an open-ended remand is unlawful.

Apply. “Till further orders” states no term, so the order is illegal; the decoy is that the custody itself looks lawful.

Conclusion. The remand order is bad and must be set aside; the Magistrate must fix a definite period.

Proviso to Section 179(1) BNSS: “no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides.”

In Simple Terms: A woman, a child, an elderly, ill or disabled witness cannot be summoned to the police station — the police must go to their home to record the statement.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Investigation (ss.174-193)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Attend & examine witnesses<br/>ss.179-180 (woman/child proviso)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Confession before Magistrate<br/>s.183"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Search & seizure (videography)<br/>ss.103, 185"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["Remand if >24 hrs<br/>s.187: 15 days at a time"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["Charge-sheet on completion<br/>s.193"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (1955) — investigation is exclusively the domain of the police; courts do not ordinarily interfere.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) — the protection against self-incrimination (Art. 20(3)) extends to police questioning during investigation.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics