Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Siddharth – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 5442 of 2021
Decided On : 16-08-2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 read with Section 170 – Anticipatory bail – Criminal courts cannot refuse to accept a charge-sheet simply because accused has not been arrested and produced before court – It is not essential in every case involving a cognizable and non-bailable offence that accused be taken into custody when charge-sheet/final report is filed – Section 170 of Cr.P.C. does not impose obligation on Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of charge-sheet – If Investigating Officer does not believe that accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody – Word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes presentation of accused by Investigating Officer before court while filing charge-sheet. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Anticipatory bail – Personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate – Occasion to arrest accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing witnesses or accused may abscond – Merely because arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made – Distinction must be made between existence of power to arrest and justification for exercise of it – If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to reputation and self-esteem of a person – In present case when appellant has joined investigation, investigation has been completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of FIR, no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before charge-sheet is taken on record – Appellant has already stated that on summons being issued appellant will put appearance before trial court – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 11, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Short issue before Court is whether anticipatory bail application of appellant ought to have been allowed. 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 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.
Findings of Court:
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 we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the Supreme Court's judgment on arrest and charge-sheet filing:
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 reproduce the provision of Section 170 of Cr.P.C. as under:
6. There are judicial precedents available on the interpretation of the aforesaid provision albeit the Delhi High Court.
7. In Court on Its Own Motion vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2004 (72) DRJ 629, the Delhi High Court dealt with an argument similar to the contention of the respondent that Section 170 Cr.P.C. prevents the trial court from taking a charge-sheet on record unless the accused is taken into custody. The relevant extracts are as under:
16. In case the police/Investigating Officer thinks it unnecessary to present the accused in custody for the reason that accused would neither abscond nor would disobey the summons as he has been co-operating in investigation and investigation can be completed without arresting him, the IO is not obliged to produce such an accused in custody.
[.....]
19. It appears that the learned Special Judge was labouring under a misconception that in every non-bailable and cognizable offence the police is required to invariably arrest a person, even if it is not essential for the purpose of investigation.
20. Rather the law is otherwise. In normal and ordinary course the police should always avoid arresting a person and sending him to jail, if it is possible for the police to complete the investigation without his arrest and if every kind of co-operation is provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer in completing the investigation. It is only in cases of utmost neces
(1) Criminal courts cannot refuse to accept a charge-sheet simply because accused has not been arrested and produced before court.(2) Section 170 of Cr.P.C. does not impose obligation on Officer-in-c....
(1) Anticipatory bail – Once anticipatory bail is granted, it ordinarily continues without fixed expiry – Filing of charge-sheet, taking of cognizance, or issuance of summons does not terminate prote....
Point of Law : Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Anticipatory bail application - Statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, the allegation of intimidation with intent to humiliate a....
The main legal point established is that the applicant's apprehension of arrest was valid, and the court emphasized the importance of considering applications for bail on merits, regardless of the ac....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is extinguished upon timely filing of a charge-sheet, even if it lacks necessary sanction, thus not rendering it incomplete.
Section 173(5) of Cr.PC provides that investigating officer shall produce all documents at time of submission of report.
(1) Bail – Ordinarily, bail ought to be granted and in serious cases court should be circumspect in exercising discretion.(2) Police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
