Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh: SLP(Crl) 5442/2021- A case analysis

The Apex Court recently held that Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest all the accused persons when filing the charge sheet. It was observed by the Court that the practice of some Lower Courts to insist on the arrest of an accused person considering it as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge sheet on record is contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the CrPC.

An appeal was filed before the Apex Court against the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application, it was noted by the Top Court that the lower court had held that unless the accused person is taken into custody the charge sheet will not be taken on record as per Section 170 of the CrPC.

Relevant Judgments

The High Court of Delhi in the case of Court on its own motion v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 109 (2003) DLT 494– It was held that it is not essential in every case involving a cognizable and non-bailable offence that an accused be taken into custody when the charge sheet/final report is filed.

In another case of Deendayal Kishanchand & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 1983 CrLJ 1583- The High Court has adopted this view that criminal courts cannot refuse to accept a charge sheet simply because the accused has not been arrested and produced before the court.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. (1994), 1994 SCC (4) 260- A distinction had been made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of it.

Observation of the Supreme Court

The Top Court opined that the term ‘custody’ mentioned in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody and it only connotes the presentation before the court of the accused person by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet.

The Supreme Court stated that “We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the CrPC that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.” It added that “We have come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge sheet 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.”

It was added by the Court that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused person will abscond/ disobey summons then it is not required to be produced in custody. The Court observed that “The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when the 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.”

It added that “A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for the exercise of it. If an 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.”

It was observed by the Top Court in the instant matter that the accused person had joined the investigation and the investigation has completed and he has been roped in after 7 years of registration of the FIR. There is no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the charge sheet is taken on record, the court said while allowing the appeal.

Conclusion 

From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra), it becomes unequivocally clear that a Magistrate cannot refuse a charge sheet if it is presented without taking the accused into custody. Section 170 of the CrPC does not intend to mandate the arrest of the accused person through the term ‘custody’ and hence the investigating officers need to ensure that they refrain from arresting the accused.