NEW DELHI: Despite the Supreme Court passing several directives to restrain investigating agencies from arresting an accused in a routine manner, particularly when it’s not needed, they had very little impact on ground. The apex court has now come to know that there is an unusual practice in Uttar Pradesh that the arrest is effected after the chargesheet is filed, which the court said “makes no sense”.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan stated that there is no point in arresting a person once the investigation in the case is complete.
Merely because an arrest can be made because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it should be done: SC said
We are of the view that once the investigation is over and a chargesheet is filed, the accused should be asked to appear before the court concerned and granted bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. If the investigating officer wants to interrogate the petitioner, the person can be arrested during the course of the investigation itself. At this stage, there is no point in making a formal arrest,” the bench said while granting bail to an accused who expressed apprehension of being arrested.
The court was informed that there is a practice in UP that arrest is effected after the chargesheet is filed and the court takes cognizance of the chargesheet. “We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense,” the bench said.
The court decried such practice in various orders, including in case of Siddharth vs State of UP. “The trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the chargesheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the CrPC. We consider such a course misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of CrPC… In the present case, when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record,” the court had said in its 2021 order.
“We may note that 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.
“…”If the accused has cooperated with the investigation and there’s no reason to believe they’ll abscond or disobey summons, there should be no compulsion for arrest,” it had said.