The Double Jeopardy rule was existed in India before the authorization of the Constitution of India. It was ordered under in segment 26. Segment 26 expresses that "arrangement as to offenses culpable under at least two institutions,- where a demonstration or exclusion establishes an offense under at least two authorizations, at that point the wrongdoer will be at risk to be indicted or rebuffed under either or any of those institutions, however will not be subject to be rebuffed twice for a similar offense.
Furthermore, area 403(1) of (the old) CrPC,1898 (Section 300 of the changed Criminal Procedure Code,1973) , which states, 300(1) an individual who has once been attempted by a court of equipped purview for an offense and sentenced or vindicated for offense will, while such conviction or exoneration stays in power, not to be subject to be attempted again for a similar offense, nor on similar actualities for some other offense for which an alternate charge from the one made against him may have been under sub-segment (1) of the segment 221 or for sub-segment (2) there of. It is to be noticed that, the Code of Criminal strategy perceive both the requests of autrefois vindicate just as autrefois convict. The conditions which ought to be fulfilled for raising both of the supplication under the Code are: right off the bat; that there ought to be past conviction or absolution, furthermore; the conviction or vindication must be by be a court of able locale, and thirdly; the resulting continuing must be for a similar offense. The articulation "same offense" demonstrates that the offense for which the charged will be attempted and the offense for which he is again being attempted must be indistinguishable, and dependent on a similar arrangement of certainties.
Segment 71 of IPC keeps running as-breaking points of discipline of offense made up of a few offenses where anything which is an offense is comprised of parts is itself an offense, the guilty party will not be rebuffed of more than one of such his offenses, except if it be so explicitly given.
In Constitution of India, Double Jeopardy is joined under Article 20(2) and it is one of essential right of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the highlights of principal rights have been acquired from U.S. Constitution and the idea of Double Jeopardy is likewise one of them. Standard of Double Jeopardy is joined into the U.S. Constitution in the Fifth Amendment, which says that "no individual will be twice placed in Jeopardy of life or appendage."
Article 20 of the Indian Constitution gives security in regard of conviction for offenses, and article 20(2) contains the standard against twofold risk which says that "no individual will be arraigned or rebuffed for a similar offense more than once." The assurance under provision (2) of Article 20 of Constitution of India is smaller than the American and British laws against Double Jeopardy.
Under the American and British Constitution the security against Double Jeopardy is allowed for the second arraignment for a similar offense regardless of whether a denounced was vindicated or indicted in the principal preliminary. Yet, under Article 20(2) the insurance against twofold discipline is given just when the denounced has not exclusively been 'indicted' yet in addition 'rebuffed', and is tried to be arraigned second time for a similar offense. The utilization of the word 'arraignment' hence constrains the extent of the assurance under proviso (1) of Article 20. In the event that there is no discipline for the offense because of the arraignment statement (2) of the article 20 has no application and an intrigue against exoneration, whenever given by the technique is in substance a duration of the indictment.