Question

Bhargesh is arrested by the police on April 11, 2022, on suspicion of having committed a series of minor thefts. During their investigation, the police find some fingerprints at the crime scenes, and on April 12, 2022, they tell Bhargesh that he must provide his finger-impressions to them so that they can check whether they match the fingerprints from the crime scenes. When Bhargesh refuses, the police tell him that he has no choice but to provide his measurements, as the Act had been passed by Parliament the previous month. Was Bhargesh bound to provide his finger-impressions under the Act?

• A. No, since Bhargesh had only been arrested, and not convicted.
• B. Yes, since Bhargesh was under arrest.
• C. No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.
• D. Yes, since finger-impressions are included within the definition of “measurements” under the Act.
• A. Yes, since the crime that Bhargesh was accused of was very serious.
• B. Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.
• C. Yes, since Bhargesh had already been arrested in connection with another crime in the past.
• D. Yes, since the police needed the blood samples to verify Bhargesh’s involvement in the crime.
• A. No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.
• B. No, since that would violate Bhargesh’s right to privacy.
• C. Yes, since the police had detained Bhargesh under a preventive Section of the CrPC
• D. Yes, since there was a high likelihood that Bhargesh would disturb the public peace on a festival day.
• A. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under a preventive section of the CrPC
• B. Yes, since only police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above can take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.
• C. No, the Magistrate had issued an order directing him to provide his photographs to the police
• D. No, since the police constable was only performing his duty.
• A. No, since a person against whom an order has been issued under Section 117 of the CrPC cannot be made to give their measurements to the police.
• B. Yes, since a person against whom an order has been issued under Section 117 of the CrPC can be made to give their measurements to the police.
• C. Yes, since Bhargesh had been detained under other preventive sections of the CrPC in the past.
• D. No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The correct option is (C): No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.

Answer 2

An Act empowering the police to collect measurements such as finger-impressions does not become operative the moment Parliament passes it; provisions of this kind typically depend on the Central Government notifying Rules under the Act before the power can actually be exercised. Bhargesh's situation on April 12, 2022, just a day after his arrest and roughly a month after the Act was passed, has to be tested against whether that notification had actually happened by then, not merely against whether the Act existed on paper.

1. Option (A): Being merely arrested rather than convicted is not, by itself, a bar to the Act applying to Bhargesh; the Act is expressly designed to reach arrested persons, not just convicts, so this reasoning does not correctly explain why he was not bound.
2. Option (B): This treats the fact of arrest as sufficient on its own, but that skips over whether the machinery of the Act, meaning the Rules needed to actually operationalise the taking of measurements, was already in place. An arrest alone does not activate an obligation under a statute whose implementing Rules have not yet been notified.
3. Option (C): This is correct. Passing an Act is not the same as bringing every part of it into practical effect. Where the statutory scheme for collecting measurements depends on Rules that the Central Government must frame and notify, the police cannot compel Bhargesh to give his finger-impressions until that notification has actually occurred, and nothing in the facts suggests it had by April 12, 2022, only a month after the Act was passed.
4. Option (D): Whether finger-impressions fall within the definition of measurements under the Act is beside the point if the Rules needed to give practical effect to that definition were not yet notified. Being covered by a definition does not help the police if the enforcement machinery for using that definition has not been switched on.

Bhargesh was not bound to comply on April 12, 2022, because the Rules necessary to operationalise the Act's measurement-taking power had not yet been notified, regardless of what the Act's substantive definitions eventually cover.

Hence, the correct answer is No, since the Rules had not yet been notified.

Answer 3

The correct option is (B): Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.

Answer 4

By October 2022 the Act is fully in force, and this scenario turns on the specific route by which the police sought Bhargesh's blood sample: not a straightforward arrest for a serious offence, but a formal order obtained from a Magistrate. The Act treats a Magistrate's direction as an independent basis for compelling a person to give measurements, including biological samples, and that basis has to be tested on its own rather than folded into questions about how serious the underlying offence is or what happened to Bhargesh before.

1. Option (A): The seriousness of the alleged offence is not, by itself, what obliges Bhargesh to give a blood sample here; nothing in the Act makes the severity of the charge the operative trigger where the police are proceeding by way of a Magistrate's order rather than relying directly on an arrest for a qualifying offence.
2. Option (B): This is correct. The Magistrate, on being satisfied it was necessary for the investigation, issued a specific order directing Bhargesh to provide his blood samples. That order is itself sufficient authority under the Act to compel the samples, independent of whether Bhargesh would otherwise have been obliged to give them on the strength of the arrest alone.
3. Option (C): Bhargesh's earlier arrest in the theft investigation is a closed, unrelated episode; that he had once been arrested for something else does not carry forward to create an obligation in this fresh matter. The real basis for compulsion here is the fresh Magistrate's order, not his arrest history.
4. Option (D): The police's own assessment that they need the samples to verify Bhargesh's involvement does not, standing alone, create a legal obligation on him; investigative usefulness explains why the police wanted the order, but it is the Magistrate's order itself, not the police's need, that supplies the legal compulsion.

Bhargesh is bound to give his blood samples because the Magistrate specifically directed him to, and that judicial order is an independent, sufficient basis for compulsion under the Act.

Hence, the correct answer is Yes, since the Magistrate had passed an order directing him to do so.

Answer 5

The correct option is (A): No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.

Answer 6

This scenario tests the boundary of who the Act's measurement-taking power actually reaches. Being detained under a preventive provision of the CrPC, aimed at stopping a possible future disturbance rather than prosecuting a past offence, is a different footing from being arrested or charged in connection with an actual offence, or being ordered to furnish security for good behaviour. The Act's obligation to provide measurements attaches to specific categories of persons, and preventive detention alone, without more, has to be checked against those categories.

1. Option (A): This is correct. At the time the police approach Bhargesh, he has only been preventively detained to stop a possible disturbance; he has not been charged with, or arrested in connection with, any offence, nor has he been ordered to give security under the relevant CrPC provision. Without falling into one of the categories the Act actually targets, he cannot be compelled to give his measurements.
2. Option (B): A general right to privacy is not the specific reason the Act does not bind Bhargesh here; the Act itself, as a piece of legislation authorising measurement-taking in defined circumstances, is what has to be interpreted, and it simply does not cover a person who is merely preventively detained without more.
3. Option (C): Preventive detention under the CrPC is not equivalent to being arrested or charged in connection with an offence for the purposes of the Act; treating mere detention as sufficient stretches the Act's categories beyond what they actually cover.
4. Option (D): How likely the police think it is that Bhargesh will actually cause a disturbance is a factual assessment feeding into the decision to detain him, not a basis the Act recognises for demanding measurements; likelihood of future misconduct does not substitute for the specific statutory categories the Act lists.

Bhargesh is not bound to hand over his photographs because preventive detention alone, without an arrest or charge connected to an offence, does not place him within the category of persons the Act obliges to give measurements.

Hence, the correct answer is No, since he was not charged or under arrest in connection with any other offence at the time.

Answer 7

The correct option is (B): Yes, since only police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above can take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.

Answer 8

Here the Magistrate has already issued a valid order directing Bhargesh to provide his photographs, so the dispute is not about whether he can be compelled at all, but about who is legally allowed to actually carry out that compulsion once he resists. The Act restricts this specific power, taking measurements from someone who is refusing or resisting a Magistrate's order, to police personnel above a certain rank, and that restriction is what decides whether the constable's conduct was lawful.

1. Option (A): Bhargesh's earlier preventive detention is a closed, separate episode by this point; the current dispute concerns the Magistrate's fresh order for photographs and the rank of the officer who enforced it, not his detention status from two days before.
2. Option (B): This is correct. The Act specifically limits the power to physically take measurements from someone who resists or refuses, after a Magistrate has ordered it, to police officers of the rank of Head Constable or above. Since an ordinary constable, below that rank, forced Bhargesh to stand still and took his photographs, that action exceeded what the Act permits, and Bhargesh succeeds.
3. Option (C): The existence of a valid Magistrate's order is necessary but not sufficient; it authorises measurements to be taken, but it does not, by itself, authorise any police officer regardless of rank to physically enforce that order against a resisting person. The rank restriction is a separate condition that also has to be satisfied.
4. Option (D): Simply performing a duty does not immunise an officer who lacks the rank the Act specifically requires for this kind of forcible enforcement; the constable was not authorised to do what he did, however dutifully he went about it.

Bhargesh succeeds because the Act reserves the power to forcibly take measurements from a resisting person, even under a Magistrate's order, to officers of Head Constable rank or above, and an ordinary constable does not meet that requirement.

Hence, the correct answer is Yes, since only police personnel of the rank of Head Constable or above can take measurements of any person who resists or refuses to give measurements when ordered to do so by a Magistrate.

Answer 9

The correct option is (D): No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.

Answer 10

The demand for iris and retina scans falls within the definition of "measurements" that police may collect from persons proceeded against under specified preventive sections of the CrPC, but only once a magistrate has actually passed an order under one of those sections. Bhargesh's case turns on whether that precondition was met when the Magistrate declined to pass an order under Section 117 asking him to furnish security.

1. Option (A): This option states the rule backwards. The law does not bar measurements from a person against whom a Section 117 order has been made; it is precisely such an order that opens the door to taking measurements. Since the premise of this option is legally incorrect, it cannot be the answer regardless of what happened to Bhargesh.
2. Option (B): This correctly describes the general rule that a person against whom a Section 117 order has been issued can be compelled to give measurements. But the rule only becomes operative once such an order actually exists. Here the Magistrate refused to pass the order, so there is no order under Section 117 in Bhargesh's case for this rule to attach to, and the option cannot be applied to these facts.
3. Option (C): Past detentions under other preventive sections are a separate legal basis and are not what the police relied on when they demanded Bhargesh's scans. The facts describe the police acting specifically off the Section 117 request that the Magistrate turned down, so an unrelated earlier detention cannot supply the missing order and does not make the present demand valid.
4. Option (D): This is the accurate reading of the facts. The police sought a Section 117 order and the Magistrate refused to issue it. Without that order in place, there is no legal basis on which Bhargesh's measurements, including iris and retina scans, can be taken. His obligation to comply never arises because the triggering order was never made.

Since the Magistrate refused to pass the Section 117 order, the precondition for demanding Bhargesh's measurements was never satisfied, and he cannot be compelled to give his iris and retina scans.

Thus, the correct answer is No, since the Magistrate had not issued the order.