Where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout, then no need to curtail his personal liberty.

[Gaurav Gupta]

Hon’ble Supreme Court holds: If there is no reason to believe with the officer that accused will abscond, or disobey summons, and has in fact, cooperated with the investigation, there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

In a latest order/ judgment passed in the matter of SIDDHARTH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. [2021 (8) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT] dated 16.08.2021, SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate.

The Hon'ble Apex Court held that where the accused has cooperated throughout the investigation, then there is no compulsion for arrest. To quote:

We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the chargesheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the Court. We are of the view that if the Investigation officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody

The Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the sanctity that our Constitution bestows on personal liberty, reiterated the well settled principle, namely: Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made.... If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.

Facts

The facts of the case, in brief, were that chargesheet was ready to be filed against the Appellant, and an arrest memo was issued against him. The Trial Court took a view that unless the Appellant is taken into custody, the chargesheet will not be taken on record, as per Section 170 of CrPc.

Ruling

The above case was decided on the interpretation of Section 170 of the CrPc. Section 170 provides that where officer has sufficient evidence or reasonable ground upon an investigation, then he shall forward the accused under custody to Trial Court and to try the accused for trial.

The Hon'ble Apex Court frowned upon the interpretation placed by the Trial Court on the Section 170 of the CrPc, and held that the said provision does not impose an obligation on the officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet. The Hon’ble Apex Court held: 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.

The Hon'ble Court added that if the I.O. does not have any reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons, and rather has throughout cooperated, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

Misconception that in every non-bailable offence, the police is required to invariably arrest a person

While allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Court gave its stamp of approval to a judgment of Delhi High Court (COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2004 (1) TMI 719 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein, it was inter-alia observed as under:

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....

Conclusion

In view of the above, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, thereby holding that the Anticipatory Bail Application of the Appellant ought to have been allowed.