Section-49

Power to break open doors and windows for purposes of liberation

Any police-officer or other person authorized to make an arrest may break open any outer or
inner door or window of any house or place in order to liberate himself or any other person who,
having lawfully entered for the purpose of making an arrest, is detained therein.

Explanation:

It is argued that allegations the petitioner use abuse language in respect of Mohammad (Peace Be
upon Him) and other family members are false on face of it. It is added that F.I.R was with
unexplained detail of more than 42 hours. It is added that there is an enmity between the
respondent and the petitioner family as is clear from F.I.R No. 4, dated 14.2.1995. All these
points are decided by Trial Court after recording evidence. It is not possible to grant bail on these
grounds. Judge after registration of case proceeded to investigate case and found petitioner
involved, therefore issued challan against him. This prima facie proof of his guilt at this stage is
sufficient to refuse bail. The application is dismissed. However, case is withdrawn Addl.
Sessions Judge in suo motu and is entrusted to Court of Sessions Judge, who is directed to
conclude trial expeditiously within three months. Bail dismissed. 1999 P.Cr.R.822

Section 51

No unnecessary restraint.
The person arrested shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his
escape.

Section 51

Search of arrested persons.

Whenever a person is arrested by a police-officer under a warrant which does not provide for the
taking of bail, or under a warrant which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested
cannot furnish bail, and

Whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant, and
cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail,

The officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police-officer
to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person, and place in safe custody
all articles, other than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him.
Explanation:

(i) Seizer of property by police:

The seizer of property belonging to a citizen by the police contravention of Ss. 1, 96, 98, 165 of
the Cr.P.C or without the authority of any other law infringes fundamental rights. Even goods in
the possession of the person who is not lawfully in possession of them cannot be seized except
under authority, if the goods are illegally seized an appropriate writ under the constitution can be
issued under the direction of the goods seized. (PLD 196 S.C. 210)

Seizer of property made by police under S.550, Cr.P.C., and the moveable property seized has to
be returned t o the person from whom the recovery is made. (2007 P.Cr.J. 1552).

(ii) Search of arrested person to be made once:

Police is competent to make search of the person of an accused but only once. Search for the
second time is an over doing on the part of police. (1997 MLD 1463)

If Ss. 51 and 102, Cr.P.C. are read together, the position will be that if the seized property is
alleged or suspected to be stolen one, or which creates suspicion of any offence, the seizure
must be reported to the Magistrate as required under section 102(3) Cr.P.C. (199 Cri.L.J.
955)

(iii) Recovery witness:

Section 51, Cr.P.C. empowers a police officer to make search of the person arrested by
police or brought by a private person without any restraint even as provided in S.103, Cr.P.C.
save that the articles so taken be kept in safe custody. The rule does not provide a safeguard
to the accused or a suspect who has been put solely at the mercy of the police officer. It
should be the duty of the police officer making a search to obtain independent and
respectable witnesses. The grounds of such search must be shown to the person searched and
his signatures be taken on memo of recovery list. If the recover memo is not signed by the
accused, the same should be treated as illegal.