Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 185
Search by police officer
(1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief in the case-diary and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which
search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station.
(2) A police officer proceeding under sub-section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person: Provided that the search conducted under this section shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means preferably by mobile phone.
(3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place.
(4) The provisions of this Sanhita as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 103 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section.
(5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith, but not later than forty-eight hours, be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.
Why this exists
Ordinarily, police need a magistrate's warrant to search a private place. But investigations can be urgent — evidence might be destroyed or moved if police wait for a warrant. This provision (carrying forward Section 165 of the old CrPC) allows a warrantless search in genuine emergencies, while building in checks: written reasons beforehand, video recording of the search, and mandatory reporting to a magistrate afterward. These safeguards try to balance quick investigation with protecting people from arbitrary or abusive searches.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 165 CrPC), courts consistently held that the safeguards are mandatory, not optional. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have ruled that failure to record reasons before the search, or failure to send the report to the magistrate, can render the search illegal, though it does not automatically invalidate the evidence found — courts examine whether the irregularity caused real prejudice to the accused. Courts have also emphasized that 'reasonable grounds' must be genuine and based on real information, not just a hunch, and that the power should not be used to bypass the ordinary warrant process routinely.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can search any house without a warrant whenever they feel like it under this section.
Fact: The search must be tied to a specific ongoing investigation, based on genuine reasonable grounds, limited to the officer's own police station area, and requires written reasons recorded before the search — it's not unlimited power. - Myth: Since no warrant is needed, there's no oversight of this kind of search.
Fact: The law requires video recording of the search and mandatory reporting to a magistrate within 48 hours, giving courts a way to review whether the search was proper. - Myth: If the officer doesn't follow the recording or reporting steps, any evidence found is automatically thrown out.
Fact: Courts have held that procedural lapses under this kind of provision are serious and can affect a case, but they generally examine whether real prejudice was caused rather than automatically discarding the evidence.