SC Informs Cops That Just Because They Can Arrest Doesn’t Mean They Should

CASE BACKGROUND

• When the appellant joined the investigation, the investigation was completed and he was caught after seven years of FIR registration. There was no reason at this stage as to why he should be arrested and searched prior to the filling of the chargesheet.
• Arrests can cause incalculable injury, usually mental as well as social, to a person’s reputation and self-esteem.
• It was stated that the timing of the arrest of the defendant during the investigation takes place when a detention investigation is required, or the criminal act is serious or it may affect the witness or the defendant might escape, to which the court pointed out that the fact that an arrest can be made just because it is lawful does not allow them to make an arrest.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• The Supreme Court stated that it urges the police not to make arrests a daily affair just because the law gives them the power to do so.
• The Court rejected such practice because it was untimely and contrary to the original intent of the law because Section 170 of the CrPC did not impose an obligation on the responsible official to arrest every defendant when submitting the chargesheet.
• Personal freedom is an important aspect of our Constitution which was emphasized by a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy. The Bench did not approve of the practice of arresting people in criminal cases, even if the investigation can be done without sending the defendant to prison.

CASE RELEVANCE

• Personal freedom is an important aspect of our Constitution which was emphasized by the judges, who also disagreed with the practice of arresting people in criminal cases, if the investigation can be conducted without sending the defendant to prison.
• Article 170 deals with cases where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendant, and stipulates that the police will transfer the defendant "in custody" to the competent court for trial when the charge is presented.
• In this case, the Court reversed the High Court’s order and protected the defendant from arrest as long as they continued to work with investigators.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE?