You Have No Grounds to Arrest Him. Her Family Is Calling You Every Week.

The Officer Who Followed Every Rule and Still Has Six Deaths to Sit With

Imagine you are the sub-inspector who registered this POCSO complaint. The offence - Section 11, sexual harassment of a child - carries under seven years' imprisonment. The law is unambiguous: you issue the accused a notice of appearance.

You do not arrest him. This is not your judgment call; it is what Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and BNSS Section 35 require, precisely to stop officers like you from making arbitrary arrests in cases exactly like this one.

He complies. He appears. Weeks later, he secures anticipatory bail on a ₹20,000 personal bond. Every step, so far, is the system working as intended. Then the calls start. The complainant's family, afraid, telling you they think he might retaliate.

You have no new evidence - no threat message, no witnessed confrontation, nothing that would independently justify seeking his arrest. What you have is a family's fear and your own sense, unprovable, that fear like this is sometimes right.

The Choice That Has No Clean Answer

Option one: you push harder - seek a stronger custodial order, flag him for closer monitoring, perhaps overstate the risk slightly in your reports to get institutional attention. If you're wrong, you've used state power against a man on suspicion the law says isn't enough, exactly the overreach BNSS 35 was built to prevent.

That has its own real cost - his liberty, his ability to work, possibly his reputation, taken on fear rather than fact. Option two: you follow the letter of the law exactly, note the family's concerns in the file and trust the procedural safeguards to hold.

If you're wrong the other way, the cost is not abstract. It is six people. The easy answer would be "obviously protect the victim"

• but that assumes you had the legal tools to do so and simply failed to use them. You didn't. The law gave you a notice, not a monitoring mandate. Choosing to police him more closely than the law authorises is not neutral diligence; it is a decision to act outside your sanctioned discretion, on a hunch, against a man who has broken no further law.

What This Dilemma Actually Tests This is not a

question about whether you care about the victim. Of course you do. It is a question about whether your role gives you the authority to act on fear alone and what it costs - to due process, to the next person wrongly suspected - if officers routinely decide it should.