Section 30 of BNSS - Powers of Superior Police Officers

0 0 Wednesday, June 17, 2026 2026-06-17T10:41:00+05:30 Edit this post
Section 30 of BNSS 2023: Powers of Superior Police Officers Explained with Exact Provision & Latest Legal Analysis Introduction: Why Section 30 BNSS M

Section 30 of BNSS 2023: Powers of Superior Police Officers — Complete Analysis with Exact Provision & Latest Case Laws

Introduction: Why Section 30 BNSS Matters for Every Citizen

Have you ever wondered who really holds power when a police officer stops you at a checkpoint? Or what happens when a senior officer takes over an investigation from your local police station? The answer lies in Section 30 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — a provision that quietly but critically shapes how policing works across India.
India replaced its 154-year-old Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) with three new laws on July 1, 2024. Among these, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) became the backbone of criminal procedure. While much attention went to dramatic changes like police custody timelines and forensic requirements, Section 30 BNSS carries enormous practical significance for everyday policing.
This article unpacks everything you need to know about Section 30 — from its exact wording to how courts have interpreted similar powers, from real-world applications to what you should know if you ever encounter a superior police officer exercising authority at your local police station. We dive deep into landmark Supreme Court judgments, High Court rulings, and the latest 2025-2026 judicial developments that are shaping how this provision operates in practice.

The Exact Wording of Section 30 BNSS: What the Law Actually Says

Let me give you the precise text first, because understanding the law starts with reading it exactly as written:
"Section 30 — Powers of Superior Officers of Police
A police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may, within the limits of the station, exercise the same powers as may be exercised by such officer in charge."
That's it. Just one sentence. But don't let the brevity fool you — this single sentence carries enormous legal weight and has been the subject of extensive judicial interpretation over decades.

Breaking Down Section 30: The Four Critical Elements

To truly understand what Section 30 means, you need to grasp four essential components that courts have identified through years of interpretation:
The "Superior in Rank" Requirement
The law specifically requires a hierarchical relationship — the officer must be superior in rank to the Station House Officer (SHO). This isn't about temporary assignments or special designations. A Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) is superior to an Inspector who is an SHO. A Superintendent of Police (SP) ranks above both. The key is formal rank in the police hierarchy, not merely seniority or experience.
The "Officer in Charge of a Police Station" Reference
Section 30 specifically references the officer in charge of a police station — what we commonly call the SHO or Station House Officer. This person holds the primary legal authority for that station's jurisdiction. The law recognizes this officer as the baseline authority, and Section 30 allows appropriately ranked officers to step into those shoes.
"Within the Limits of the Station" — The Geographic Boundary
This is crucial. The superior officer's power extends only within the territorial limits of that particular police station. A DSP from District Headquarters cannot use Section 30 to exercise SHO powers in another district's police station. The geographic limitation keeps the power structure organized and prevents overlapping authority conflicts.
"Same Powers as May Be Exercised" — The Scope of Authority
The superior officer gets the same powers, not additional or enhanced powers. They can do what the SHO can do — register FIRs, conduct investigations, make arrests, execute searches, file charge sheets — but nothing more. This is about functional equivalence, not power expansion.

How Section 30 BNSS Compares to the Old CrPC Section 36

If you're familiar with the old system, Section 30 BNSS is the direct successor to Section 36 of the CrPC, 1898. The wording is nearly identical, which means decades of judicial interpretation under the CrPC remain highly relevant.
The old Section 36 CrPC read:
"Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station."
The continuity was deliberate. Parliament wanted to maintain established police hierarchies and command structures while modernizing other aspects of criminal procedure. When courts interpret Section 30 BNSS, they will inevitably look to how Section 36 CrPC was understood and applied.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on Superior Police Officer Powers

State of Kerala vs. P.B. Sourabhan (2016) — The Most Important Precedent

This is the landmark Supreme Court judgment that every lawyer and police officer must know. The case fundamentally clarified the relationship between Section 36 CrPC (now Section 30 BNSS) and Section 18 of the Police Act.
What Happened in This Case:
The Kerala High Court had held that a superior police officer of a different sub-division could not exercise powers of an SHO through an executive order of the Police Chief if that station didn't fall within the local area to which the officer was appointed. The High Court essentially read strict territorial limitations into Section 36.
The Supreme Court's Reversal:
The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Ranjan Gogoi and P.C. Pant, JJ, reversed the Kerala High Court. The Apex Court held that:
  • Section 36 CrPC does not debar the State Police Chief from appointing any superior officer who, in his opinion, would be competent and fit to investigate a particular case
  • It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in light of the facts of a given case, that determines the appointment
  • The limits of jurisdiction will not act as a fetter on the exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed
  • Such an appointment would not be hedged by the limitations imposed by Section 36 CrPC
  • However, this power is always amenable to judicial challenge on grounds of malafide or being without justification and reasonable cause
Key Quote from the Supreme Court:
"Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure does not fetter the jurisdiction of the State Police Chief to pass such an order based on his satisfaction. It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed."
Why This Matters for Section 30 BNSS:
Since Section 30 BNSS is in pari materia (on the same subject matter) with Section 36 CrPC, this judgment remains directly applicable. The Supreme Court's interpretation that superior officers can be appointed across jurisdictional boundaries by the State Police Chief, subject to satisfaction and judicial review, continues to guide how Section 30 operates today.

P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police vs. State of Haryana (1987) — The "Superior in Rank" Principle

This earlier Supreme Court judgment established the fundamental principle that powers must be exercised by officers superior in rank. While this case dealt with Confidential Reports (CRs) and reporting authorities under service rules, the principle it established is directly relevant to Section 30.
What the Supreme Court Held:
  • A reporting authority must be a person higher in rank than the member of the service
  • From the point of view of propriety and reasonableness, such an authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the service concerned
  • The State Government can specifically empower only such authority as the reporting authority as is superior in rank
Key Quote:
"Apart from any legal provision, it is just and proper that a reporting authority must be a person to whom the member of the Service is answerable for his performances. In other words, the reporting authority should be a person higher in rank than the member of the Service."
Application to Section 30 BNSS:
This principle reinforces that the "superior in rank" requirement in Section 30 is not merely procedural but substantive and constitutional. It ensures accountability flows downward through proper hierarchical channels.

State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) — Superintendence and Investigation Powers

This Supreme Court judgment addressed the power of superintendence enjoyed by the Police Chief and whether it comprehends authority to control investigation and depute superior officers.
What the Court Held:
  • The power of superintendence conferred with the Police Chief comprehends the power to exercise effective control over the investigation of crime
  • The Police Chief can empower any superior police officer above the rank of the Station House Officer to conduct investigation
  • This power is unquestionable when the officer enjoys jurisdiction extending over the whole State
Relevance to Section 30 BNSS:
This judgment supports the principle that superior officers can direct and conduct investigations under their superintendence powers, which work alongside Section 30's direct power exercise.

Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of Maharashtra (2025) — Latest Supreme Court on BNSS Investigation

This 2025 Supreme Court judgment (SCC OnLine SC 238) is one of the first major cases interpreting the new BNSS investigation provisions. While it primarily dealt with Section 175(3) BNSS (Magistrate-ordered investigations), the Court took judicial notice of the changes between CrPC and BNSS.
What the Supreme Court Noted:
The Court observed that while Section 175 BNSS corresponds to Section 156 CrPC, the BNSS introduces new procedural requirements:
  • Applications to Magistrates must now be supported by affidavit
  • Magistrates must conduct inquiry before ordering investigation
  • Magistrates must consider submissions of the police officer before issuing directions
Why This Matters for Section 30:
When superior officers exercise Section 30 powers, they must now comply with these enhanced BNSS procedural requirements. The judgment signals that courts will scrutinize BNSS compliance more rigorously than under the old CrPC.

Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat (2025) — Free Speech and Police Powers

In this March 2025 judgment (2025 INSC 410), the Supreme Court examined Section 173(3) BNSS and the role of higher police officers in protecting free speech.
What the Court Directed:
The Supreme Court suggested that higher police officers (whose permission is required under Section 173(3) for preliminary inquiry) should ordinarily grant permission to conduct preliminary inquiry in cases involving free speech where punishment falls within 3-7 years.
Key Takeaway for Section 30:
This judgment shows the Supreme Court's expectation that superior officers exercise their powers responsibly to protect constitutional rights, not just to enforce law. When DSPs and SPs act under Section 30, they carry this constitutional obligation.

High Court Judgments on Superior Officer Powers

Karnataka High Court — Crl. Petition on Section 36 CrPC (2013)

The Karnataka High Court addressed a "nice question of law" — whether a police officer exercising power under Section 36 CrPC can be challenged by a private complainant.
What the Court Held:
  • When a superior officer exercises investigation powers, the private complainant's remedy is to approach the Magistrate who referred the investigation
  • The Magistrate, if convinced, can direct proper investigation or take other appropriate action
  • Direct writ petitions against superior officers exercising Section 36 powers are not the preferred remedy
Application to Section 30 BNSS:
This judgment establishes that superior officer actions under Section 30 are subject to judicial review, but the proper forum is typically the Magistrate or higher criminal courts, not writ jurisdiction.

Karnataka High Court — Revision Petition (2015)

In another Karnataka High Court case, the Court addressed whether investigation can be directed only to a Station Officer under Section 156(3) CrPC.
What the Court Held:
  • A Magistrate can make direction under Section 156(3) only to a Station Officer of the concerned police station
  • Neither any gazetted officer nor any authority of the police department can be directed by the Magistrate to investigate under Section 156(3)
  • However, Section 36 CrPC operates independently — superior officers can exercise SHO powers within their jurisdiction
Key Distinction:
This judgment clarifies the difference between Magistrate-directed investigation (which goes to the SHO) and superior officer self-exercise of power (which happens under Section 30/36). These are parallel but distinct pathways.

Andhra Pradesh High Court — Circle Inspector Powers (2003)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined a case where a Circle Inspector (superior to SHO) took up investigation under Section 36 CrPC.
What the Court Held:
  • Section 36 CrPC empowers any police officer superior in rank to the SHO to exercise the same powers
  • The superior officer can undertake the investigation itself or direct the SHO
  • Even while investigation continues with the SHO, a superior officer can choose to exercise Section 36 powers at any time
Practical Impact:
This judgment confirms that superior officers have concurrent, not exclusive, powers. The SHO doesn't lose authority when a DSP arrives — both can operate simultaneously.

Kerala High Court — Government Superintendence (2020)

The Kerala High Court addressed the scope of superior officer powers under Section 36 CrPC read with Sections 156 and 173 CrPC.
What the Court Held:
  • Under Section 36 CrPC, superior officers can conduct investigation or give directions for proper investigation
  • Superior officers can also change the investigating officer if needed
  • Actions under Section 36 read with Sections 156 and 173 cannot be said to be bad merely because a superior officer intervened
  • The Government has power of superintendence over police functioning
Important Caveat:
The Court noted that a Commission of Inquiry report cannot be treated as a police report under Section 173(2) — superior officers must follow proper procedural channels when exercising powers.

Andhra Pradesh High Court — BNSS Implementation (2025)

In a 2025 judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS and Section 30(A) of the Police Act.
What the Court Noted:
  • Prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (corresponding to Section 144 CrPC) and Section 30(A) of the Police Act were proclaimed in police station limits
  • The Sub-Divisional Police Officer issued these orders exercising powers under both BNSS and Police Act
  • The Court examined the interplay between BNSS provisions and Police Act powers
Relevance to Section 30:
This judgment shows how Section 30 BNSS operates alongside other police powers under the Police Act, creating a comprehensive framework for superior officer authority.

Allahabad High Court — Writ Petition (2025)

In a 2025 writ petition, the Allahabad High Court dealt with a Sub Inspector dismissed from service following criminal conviction. While this case primarily dealt with service matters, it illustrates the consequences when police officers misuse their powers.
What the Court Examined:
  • The petitioner was dismissed under Rule 8(2)(a) of UP Police Punishment Rules, 1991
  • The Court considered whether show-cause notice was required before dismissal
  • Reliance was placed on Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (1985) and other Supreme Court precedents
Lesson for Section 30:
Police officers exercising Section 30 powers remain fully accountable for their actions. Misuse can lead to criminal prosecution, departmental action, and dismissal.

Bombay High Court — BNSS Compliance (December 2025)

In a December 2025 ruling, the Bombay High Court strongly criticized Maharashtra Police for failing to comply with BNSS norms.
What the Court Did:
  • The Court rapped the police for flouting BNSS procedural requirements
  • Sought compliance reports from police authorities
  • Emphasized that new BNSS requirements are mandatory, not optional
Implication for Section 30:
When superior officers exercise Section 30 powers, they must fully comply with all BNSS requirements — including forensic evidence collection, video recording, and timeline adherence. Courts will not tolerate procedural shortcuts.

Delhi High Court — Section 173 BNSS (May 2025)

In a May 2025 judgment, the Delhi High Court examined Section 173 BNSS (FIR registration) and the role of superior officers when police refuse to register FIRs.
What the Court Held:
  • Under Section 173(4) BNSS, an aggrieved person can send information to the Superintendent of Police
  • The SP, if satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, shall either investigate himself or direct an investigation by a subordinate officer
  • Such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence
Key Connection to Section 30:
This provision complements Section 30 — when the SP investigates or directs investigation under Section 173(4), they are effectively exercising Section 30 powers by having the same authority as the SHO.

The Real-World Purpose: Why This Law Exists

Section 30 exists because police stations need oversight and backup. Here's what actually happens in practice:
  • Serious crimes often require immediate attention from experienced officers who outrank the local SHO
  • Corruption or misconduct by a station officer may require a superior to step in directly
  • Inter-jurisdictional coordination becomes smoother when senior officers can legally operate within station limits
  • High-profile investigations frequently need senior supervision that goes beyond mere "guidance"
Without Section 30, a superior officer would technically lack legal authority to do anything more than advise — they couldn't legally sign documents, make arrests, or conduct searches that would stand up in court.

Judicial Interpretation: Core Principles Courts Have Established

The Power is Concurrent, Not Exclusive
Courts have consistently held that when a superior officer exercises Section 30 powers, they do not displace or suspend the SHO's authority. Both officers can exercise powers simultaneously. The SHO doesn't become powerless just because a DSP arrives. This concurrent nature prevents power vacuums and ensures continuous police functioning.
Superior Officers Can Give Directions Binding on Subordinates
Related provisions (like Section 31 BNSS, which deals with public assistance to police) reinforce that superior officers can issue lawful directions to subordinate officers within their chain of command. This creates a coherent command structure essential for disciplined police forces.
Actions Must Be Bona Fide and Within Legal Limits
Courts have repeatedly struck down actions where superior officers used their rank to circumvent legal safeguards or harass individuals. The power under Section 30 must be exercised bona fide — in good faith, for legitimate police purposes, and respecting constitutional protections.
Written Record Requirements Apply Equally
When a superior officer exercises SHO powers under Section 30, all procedural requirements that apply to the SHO apply equally to them. They must maintain proper records, follow arrest protocols, respect detention timelines, and comply with the same evidentiary standards.

Practical Scenarios: When Section 30 Gets Used

Scenario 1: The DSP Takes Over a Murder Investigation
A brutal murder occurs in a rural police station. The local SHO is inexperienced. The DSP arrives and personally leads the investigation, records witness statements, and coordinates the arrest team. Under Section 30, every action the DSP takes has the same legal validity as if the SHO performed it.
Scenario 2: Corruption Allegations Against the SHO
If the SHO themselves becomes suspect — perhaps accused of taking bribes to suppress a case — a superior officer can use Section 30 to directly take control of that station's functioning. This prevents the compromised officer from destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Scenario 3: During Communal Tensions or Riots
When large-scale violence breaks out, police leadership often deploys senior officers to hotspots. Section 30 allows an SP or Additional SP to legally command operations within any station in their district, ensuring coordinated response without jurisdictional confusion.
Scenario 4: Cross-Jurisdictional Investigation by State Police Chief Order
Following the Sourabhan precedent, the State Police Chief can appoint a superior officer from one district to investigate a case in another district's police station, regardless of territorial limitations, provided the Chief is satisfied about the officer's competence and the case's requirements.

Constitutional and Human Rights Safeguards

Section 30 operates within a framework of constitutional limitations that courts actively enforce:
  • Article 21 protections apply fully — no superior officer can use Section 30 to bypass due process, fair treatment, or protection from arbitrary detention
  • Right against self-incrimination remains absolute regardless of which officer exercises power
  • Requirements for arrest — including production before magistrate within 24 hours — apply identically
  • Women's arrest protections under Section 43 BNSS (no arrest after sunset before sunrise without judicial permission) bind superior officers equally

Current Status: Implementation Challenges and Observations (2025-2026)

As of mid-2025, with BNSS completing its first year of operation, several implementation patterns have emerged:
Training Gaps
Many police officers, particularly at middle management levels, received rapid transition training from CrPC to BNSS. The nuances of Section 30 — particularly its interaction with new BNSS provisions like mandatory forensic evidence collection for serious crimes — require ongoing professional development.
Documentation Clarity
When superior officers exercise Section 30 powers, clear documentation becomes essential for court proceedings. Defense lawyers increasingly scrutinize whether the officer was genuinely "superior in rank" and whether actions were "within station limits." Proper recording prevents successful challenges.
Digital Integration
BNSS emphasizes electronic processes — e-FIRs, digital evidence collection, video-recorded searches. When superior officers operate under Section 30, they must comply with these digital requirements equally. Some states have developed specific protocols for senior officers logging into station-level digital systems.
Judicial Scrutiny Intensifying
The Bombay High Court's December 2025 criticism of police BNSS compliance signals that courts will actively enforce the new law's requirements. Superior officers can no longer rely on "old ways" of operating.

Limitations and Boundaries: What Section 30 Does NOT Allow

Understanding Section 30 requires knowing its negative boundaries:
  • No power to override judicial orders — A superior officer cannot use Section 30 to ignore bail conditions or magistrate directions
  • No authority outside station limits — The geographic constraint is strict; cross-station operations require different legal bases (like State Police Chief appointment per Sourabhan)
  • No enhanced powers — The superior officer gets SHO-level powers, not magisterial or special investigative powers that require separate legal authorization
  • No immunity from accountability — Actions under Section 30 remain fully subject to departmental discipline, judicial review, and criminal liability if laws are violated

The Bigger Picture: Section 30 in India's Police Reform Context

Section 30 sits within larger debates about police modernization that BNSS attempts to address. The Sanhita introduces:
  • Mandatory forensic investigation for offenses punishable by 7+ years imprisonment
  • Video recording of search and seizure operations
  • Strict timelines for investigation completion
  • Victim-centric procedures including mandatory victim statements
When superior officers exercise Section 30 powers, they must implement these enhanced procedural requirements. This creates accountability pressure — senior officers can no longer simply "take over" without adopting modernized standards.
The Status of Policing in India Report 2025 reveals concerning trends that make Section 30 accountability even more critical:
  • 30% of police personnel have high propensity to justify torture
  • IPS-level officers have the highest propensity (34%) to justify torture despite receiving the most training
  • 40% of IPS officers support giving minor punishment instead of legal trial for small crimes
  • 24% of IPS officers support encounter killings over legal trials
These findings underscore why judicial oversight of superior officer powers under Section 30 is essential.

Key Takeaways for Citizens, Lawyers, and Police Officers

For Ordinary Citizens:
  • A superior officer exercising powers at your local station has legal authority under Section 30, but the same protections apply to you
  • You can request identification and clarification of the officer's rank and authority
  • All constitutional rights — including right to legal representation, right to remain silent, right to medical examination — remain fully applicable
  • If a superior officer refuses to register your FIR, you can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS
For Legal Practitioners:
  • Challenge Section 30 exercises on jurisdictional grounds if the officer wasn't genuinely superior in rank or acted outside station limits
  • Examine documentation carefully — was the superior officer's intervention properly recorded?
  • Use constitutional protections as your primary defense, since Section 30 doesn't create any immunity
  • Cite State of Kerala vs. P.B. Sourabhan for the principle that even State Police Chief appointments are subject to judicial review for malafide
For Police Leadership:
  • Train your officers on BNSS-specific requirements when exercising Section 30 powers
  • Develop clear protocols for when and how senior officers intervene at station level
  • Maintain transparent records to withstand judicial scrutiny
  • Remember that Sourabhan allows cross-jurisdictional appointments, but only based on satisfaction and reasonable cause

Looking Forward: Evolving Interpretation of Section 30 (2026 and Beyond)

As India's courts begin handling more BNSS cases, we can anticipate several emerging legal questions:
  • How does Section 30 interact with new BNSS provisions like mandatory forensic investigation timelines?
  • Can specialized units (cyber crime, economic offenses) use Section 30 when operating outside their designated jurisdiction?
  • What digital evidence standards apply when superior officers remotely direct station operations?
  • How do federal structures play out when central police forces (CBI, NIA) officers interact with state police station authorities?
  • Will courts extend the Sourabhan principle to allow other appointing authorities beyond the State Police Chief?
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment in XXX vs. State of Kerala (2026 INSC 88) already shows the Court actively engaging with BNSS provisions and their relationship with CrPC precedents. This trend will continue to shape Section 30's interpretation.

Conclusion: The Quiet Power of a Single Sentence

Section 30 BNSS reminds us that profound legal authority can reside in simple language. One sentence — "A police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may, within the limits of the station, exercise the same powers as may be exercised by such officer in charge" — structures how India's vast police apparatus actually functions on the ground.
For citizens, understanding this provision means knowing when police actions are legally valid and when they might be challenged. For the police, it means clear command structures that enable effective crime response while maintaining accountability. For courts, it provides interpretive continuity from decades of CrPC jurisprudence into India's new criminal procedure era.
The landmark Sourabhan judgment reminds us that even this simple provision contains nuanced boundaries — the State Police Chief can transcend territorial limits, but only with satisfaction, reason, and accountability. The 2025 Supreme Court judgments on BNSS show that courts will rigorously enforce procedural compliance.
As BNSS matures and courts develop specific precedents, Section 30 will undoubtedly feature in significant judgments. Until then, the principles of bona fide exercise, jurisdictional limits, constitutional safeguards, and the Sourabhan doctrine remain the guiding framework for this essential policing provision.

Source Links

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. The case law landscape for BNSS is evolving, and readers should verify current judicial developments.

Labels:

SHARE:

Twitter Facebook Google Pinterest

AUTHOR: RABI KR. PANDIT

author-avatar
Hello, I am Rabi Kr. Pandit, the founder of this platform and a resident of Kolkata, India. I hold a degree in History, Political Science, and English, and I am currently pursuing my legal studies at Jogesh Chandra Chaudhary Law College under the University of Calcutta. I manage multiple educational blogs with the aim of delivering knowledge in a clear, structured, and accessible manner. My focus is on simplifying complex topics and presenting reliable information that benefits students and readers from diverse academic backgrounds.

COMMENTS

Latest Articles

    Loaded All Posts Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS PREMIUM CONTENT IS LOCKED STEP 1: Share to a social network STEP 2: Click the link on your social network Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy Table of Content