2021 Supreme(SC) 445 ; 2021 Supreme(SC) 452
Siddharth – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Dube, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Gaur, Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma, Ms. Chhaya Gupta, Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai.
For the Respondents: Ms. Garima Prashad, Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on arrest and charge-sheet filing:
- Criminal courts cannot refuse to accept a charge-sheet simply because the accused has not been arrested and produced before the court (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- 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 the charge-sheet (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The word "custody" in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate police or judicial custody but merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the charge-sheet (!) (!) .
- If the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey a summons, and the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation, the officer is not required to produce the accused in custody (!) (!) (!) .
- Personal liberty is a crucial aspect of the constitutional mandate (Article 21), and mere lawfulness of arrest does not mandate that it must be made (!) (!) .
- There is a distinction between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercising that power (!) .
- Routine arrests can cause incalculable harm to a person's reputation and self-esteem (!) .
- The occasion to arrest during investigation arises only when custodial investigation is necessary, the crime is heinous, there is a possibility of influencing witnesses, or there is a risk of the accused absconding (!) .
- Police should avoid arresting a person and sending them to jail if it is possible to complete the investigation without their arrest, provided the accused cooperates (!) .
- Arrest is only necessary in cases of utmost necessity, such as recovering incriminating articles, eliciting information about accomplices, or if there is a grave risk of absconding (!) .
- The Supreme Court's view aligns with and gives imprimatur to previous High Court judgments (e.g., Court on Its Own Motion and Deendayal Kishanchand) that established these principles (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue before us is whether the anticipatory bail application of the appellant ought to have been allowed. We may note that as per the Order dated 02.08.2021 we had granted interim protection.
3. The fact which emerges is that the appellant along with 83 other private persons were sought to be roped in a FIR which was registered seven years ago. The appellant claims to be supplier of stone for which royalty was paid in advance to these holders and claims not to be involved in the tendering process. Similar person was stated to have been granted interim protection until filing of the police report. The appellant had already joined the investigation before approaching this Court and the charge-sheet was stated to be ready to be filed. However, the reason to approach this Court was on account of arrest memo having been issued.
4. It is not disputed before us by learned counsel for the respondent that the charge-sheet is ready to be filed but submits that the trial court takes a view that unless the person is taken into custody the charge-sheet will not be taken on record in view of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
5. In order to appreciate the controversy we
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
