Comparative Study: Bns Vs. Uk Criminal Code
Comparative Study: BNSS (India) vs. UK Criminal Code
1. Framework Overview
| Feature | BNSS (India) | UK Criminal Code |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Codified mainly under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) | No single Criminal Code; criminal law is a mix of statutes and common law principles |
| Bail | Statutory provisions, bailable/non-bailable offense distinction | Bail governed by Bail Act 1976 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) |
| Arrest | Section 41 CrPC governs arrest without warrant, with conditions | Arrest governed by PACE 1984, Section 24 and 25 (police powers to arrest) |
| Judicial Oversight | Magistrate oversees custody within 24 hours (Section 57 CrPC) | Suspect must be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) |
| Victim Participation | Increasing but limited; no statutory right to oppose bail | Victims have enhanced rights under Victims’ Code; can provide impact statements during bail |
| Police Powers | Restricted by law, police must justify arrest and custody | Police powers regulated by PACE, strict codes of practice for arrest, detention, questioning |
2. Arrest: BNSS (India) vs. UK
India (Section 41 CrPC)
Police can arrest without warrant only under certain conditions (reasonable suspicion, to prevent commission of cognizable offense, etc.).
Arrest must be justified; arbitrary arrest prohibited (Joginder Kumar case).
Rights of arrested person include informing reason, right to lawyer, etc.
UK (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)
Police can arrest without warrant if suspect is about to commit, is committing, or has committed an offense.
Arrest must be “necessary” for certain reasons (to prevent harm, allow investigation, etc.).
Code C of PACE mandates informing the suspect of grounds of arrest and rights promptly.
3. Bail: BNSS (India) vs. UK
India (CrPC)
Bail is a right for bailable offenses but discretionary for non-bailable offenses.
Bail can be denied if there is risk of tampering, flight, or threat to society.
Judicial discretion is broad; Supreme Court laid down principles in cases like Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia.
UK (Bail Act 1976)
Presumption in favor of bail except for serious offenses.
Bail conditions can be imposed (curfew, sureties, reporting to police).
Bail hearings are formal and structured; bail can be refused if flight risk or interference with justice.
4. Victim Participation
India
Victim rights are evolving; no specific statutory right to oppose bail, but courts do consider victim’s interest.
Cases like Gurmit Singh and Nipun Saxena recognize victim participation in bail hearings.
UK
Victims’ Code mandates that victims are kept informed and can make victim personal statements.
Victims may be heard in bail applications especially in serious offenses.
5. Case Laws: Detailed Comparative Analysis
India Case Laws
a) Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994)
Arrest is not the rule but the exception.
Arrest without sufficient reason violates fundamental rights.
Emphasizes police accountability and judicial oversight.
b) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980)
Set out guidelines for grant/refusal of bail.
Arrest and bail must be consistent with principles of justice, liberty, and fair play.
c) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Identified cases of misuse of power in arrests.
Arrest to be made only when justified by law.
UK Case Laws
a) R v. Samuel (1988)
Arrest must be “necessary” under PACE.
Court held arrest unlawful if necessity test not met.
b) R v. Evans (2008)
Bail refusal should be based on clear risks (flight, tampering evidence).
Reinforced presumption in favor of bail except where justified.
c) R (On the Application of Hicks) v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (2017)
Addressed police powers of arrest.
Court clarified limits on arrest for questioning without sufficient cause.
6. Key Differences and Similarities
| Aspect | BNSS (India) | UK Criminal Code |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest Principle | Arrest only if conditions under Section 41 CrPC met | Arrest only if “necessary” under PACE |
| Bail Presumption | No presumption in non-bailable offenses, court discretion | Presumption in favor of bail except in serious cases |
| Judicial Review | Magistrate must be informed within 24 hrs; courts actively check legality | Magistrate or court must review custody within 24 hrs |
| Victim Rights | Limited but growing recognition | Formalized rights under Victims’ Code |
| Police Accountability | Increasing judicial scrutiny (D.K. Basu guidelines) | Strict Codes of Practice under PACE |
7. Summary
Both India and UK emphasize restrictions on arbitrary arrests, requiring police to meet conditions.
UK’s system is more codified regarding arrest and bail conditions, while India’s system involves a larger role of judicial discretion.
Victim participation rights are more formalized in the UK.
Judicial oversight on police powers is strong in both, but India’s system has seen landmark judgments expanding safeguards.
Both systems require production before magistrates within 24 hours to prevent illegal detention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments