Date of Judgement:
16th August 2021
Coram:
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy
Parties:
Petitioner: Siddharth
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Subject
The judgement analysed the scope and application of Section 170 of the Cr. P. C. as to whether it is mandatory to put an accused in custody before recording his chargesheet under the Section.
Overview
- The Appellant, who claimed to be a supplier of goods, along with 83 others, was sought to to be roped in a FIR that was registered seven years ago.
- It was submitted on his behalf that the Appellant had joined the investigation process, and a chargesheet was also stated to be ready to be filed. However, since an arrest memo was made, the Appellant decided to approach the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
- The High Court rejected the bail plea, following which the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. A similar case wherein a person was granted interim relief was also cited to strengthen the arguments.
- The Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the arrest memo was filed due to the Trial Court’s view that unless a person is taken into custody, the charge-sheet cannot be taken on record under Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues Involved
- Whether the anticipatory bail application of the appellant should have been allowed or not?
Important Provisions
- Section 170, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Section states that where an investigation is done in accordance with the Chapter, if the officer in charge of the police station is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence, then s/he shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate. The Magistrate would accordingly record the chargesheet filed against such accused.
Judgement Analysis
- The Supreme Court held that it is not mandatory to arrest each and every accused person during the filing of the charge-sheet. “We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons, he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court, while filing the chargesheet,” the Court opined.
- It further held that arrest can be made necessary only if the crime is heinous, or if there is a possibility that the accused may abscond. If arrest is made a routine practice, then that would lower the self esteem of the accused, and would affect his reputation and affect his personal liberty. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
With these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
Conclusion
The case is a good example that would prevent the police from unnecessarily arresting the accused persons by virtue of Section 170 of the CrPC. As the Court rightly observed, the Section itself does not absolutely mandate arrest, but rather necessitates custody. Custody would not always indicate arresting the person, and if otherwise, then it would greatly affect the accused persons’ reputation.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
