Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.

FACTS: 'A', a police officer, without warrant, apprehends 'Z', who has committed murder.

The correct answer is: 'A' is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement.

Let us carefully analyze this problem by first understanding the principle given, and then applying it to the facts.

Step 1: Understanding the Legal Principle

The principle clearly states: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it."

This means that if a person is legally obligated — i.e., duty-bound by law — to perform a certain act, then performing that act cannot be considered a crime or an offence, regardless of whether that act would ordinarily be unlawful when done by a private individual.

Step 2: Identifying the Facts

The facts tell us:
— 'A' is a police officer.
— 'A' apprehends (arrests) 'Z' without a warrant.
— 'Z' has committed murder — a serious cognizable offence.

Step 3: Applying the Principle to the Facts

A police officer, under the law, is empowered and duty-bound to arrest a person who has committed a cognizable offence such as murder, even without a warrant. This authority is a well-recognized aspect of police powers in criminal procedure.

Since 'A' is a police officer who is bound by law to apprehend individuals who commit serious offences like murder, his act of apprehending 'Z' — even without a warrant — falls squarely within his legal duty and authority.

Applying the principle: because 'A' was bound by law to make this arrest, his act of apprehending 'Z' cannot constitute an offence. Therefore, 'A' cannot be held guilty of wrongful confinement.

Step 4: Eliminating the Other Options

— 'A' is guilty of wrongful confinement — This is incorrect. 'A' acted within the scope of his legal duty, so the principle directly shields him from liability.
— 'A' may be guilty of wrongful restraint / 'A' cannot apprehend 'Z' without a warrant — This is also incorrect. A police officer has the legal power to arrest without a warrant in cases of serious cognizable offences like murder. The absence of a warrant does not make the arrest unlawful for a police officer in such circumstances.

Conclusion

'A', being a police officer, was legally bound to apprehend 'Z' who had committed murder. Since the principle protects any act done by a person who is bound by law to do it, 'A' is not guilty of wrongful confinement. The act of arrest, in this case, is entirely justified and protected by law.