CLAT PG Mock Test Series 2022 [Offline] by OurLegalWorld

Written by admin

Updated on:

CLAT PG Mock Test Series 2022 [Offline] by OurLegalWorld

Mock Test Instructions

  • The timing for the Offline Mock – Mock test to be conducted between 26 May to 17 June 2022 will strictly be as per IST (GMT+5.30hrs to 7.30)
  • Download OMR sheet : Click here
  • Open Question Paper [Link will activated 5 Min. before Schedule]
  • Send scanned/image Answered OMR sheet at
Total No. of Questions120
No. of MCQs120
Total Marks120
Marking SchemeCorrect Answer – 1 mark each; Wrong Answer – 0.25 marks deduction


  • 26th May 2022 [Free] :- Open Question Paper click here [Answer Key]
  • 3rd June [Free]
  • 10th June [Available only for OLW Members} available at click here
  • 13/14 June {OLW}
  • 17th June {OLW}

AILET PG Mock Tests 2022 | NLUD LLM Mock : Click here

1. Read the passage and answer the questions
Learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant argued that the high court erred
in granting bail without adverting to the statutory rigours of Section 43D (5) of UAPA.
Relying upon judgment in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
it was highlighted that the bail proceedings under the special enactment were distinct
and the Courts are duty bound to refuse bail where the suspect is prima facie believed
to be guilty. It was further contended that in numerous prior rounds before the
Special Court and the High Court, there emerged enough reasons to believe that
the respondent was, prima facie, guilty of the accusations made against him. The
fact that the respondent had absconded for years was pressed into aid as
legitimate apprehension of his not returning if set free. As regard to the early
conclusion of trial, NIA has filed an additional affidavit suggesting to examine
276 witnesses and at the same time expecting to conduct the trial on a day today
basis and complete it within around a year. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent, on the other hand, highlighted that many of the co-accused had been
acquitted, and although a few had been convicted as well, but those convicts had also
been awarded a sentence of not more than eight years. Given how the respondent has
already suffered incarceration of almost five and a half year without the trial having
even started, it would violate his Constitutional liberty and rights to have him serve
most of his sentence without any adjudication of guilt by a judicial authority. He urged
that once the High Court had exercised discretion to grant bail, the same ought not to
be interfered with except in rare circumstances. “We may observe at the outset that we
are conscious of the limitations which bind us while entertaining a plea against grant of
bail by the lower court, that too, which is a superior court like High Court. It is expected
that once the discretion is exercised by the High Court on relevant considerations and
bail is granted, this Court would normally not interfere with such a discretion, unless it
is found that the discretion itself is exercised on extraneous considerations and/or the
relevant factors which need to be taken into account while exercising such a
discretion are ignored or bypassed. There have to be very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances that are necessary to interfere with the discretion in
granting the bail. These material considerations are also spelled out in the
aforesaid judgments viz. whether the accused would be readily available for his
trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by
tampering with the evidence. …” (1) Even in the case of special legislations like the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 or the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”) which too have somewhat rigorous
conditions for grant of bail, this Court in (2) and (3) enlarged the accused on bail when
they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early
completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special
enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to
ensure the protection of innocent civilians.

1. The passage has been picked up from which case?





2. Which case laid down the foundation to right to speedy trial?





3. The most controversial provision involved in the above case is section 43 D (5) of UAPA. What does the section state?





4. XYZ, the person has sufficient food but does not provide some food to a beggar who dies of hunger. XYZ is guilty of…