SIDDHARTH VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. (2021,SC)(2 Judge Bench)
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy)
Issue:- Whether the arrest of the accused is mandatory before filing of chargesheet as it is required by Section 170 that accused shall be forwarded under “custody” to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial…
Held:- Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet. 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.
Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.
A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation than there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
About the Author
