The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing the charge sheet. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy held that the word “custody” appearing in Section 170 of the CrPC does not imply either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the Court while filing the charge sheet.
Factual Background
A first information report was registered against the appellant for entering into a conspiracy and criminal breach of trust committed by former minister and high ranking officials for their involvement in a project commenced by the State Government in the year 2007 to build parks and museums which allegedly caused a loss of Rs,14,000 crores to the exchequer.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioner was a supplier of sandstone and made a total supply of Rs. 90,000 Lakh but till date only received 26 lakhs. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the investigation has been going on for seven years and the petitioner has participated in the same. Thus, there is no need for custodial interrogation of the accused. It was also contended that the petitioner was a mere supplier with no connection with the alleged crime.
Case of the Respondent
The counsel of the State Government opposed the plea arguing that the custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary and Section 170 mandates the police to take the accused into custody.
Observation of the Court
The Supreme Court noted that personal liberty is a relevant aspect and that,
“an 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 accuse may abscond”.
The Court also examined the scope of Section 170 and various High Court judgments in this regard. Specific stress was laid on the Case of on its own motion v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
“The Delhi High Court was not alone to adopt this view and other High Courts apparently have also followed suit on the proposition that criminal courts cannot refuse to accept a charge sheet simply because the accused has not been arrested and produced before the Court.”
Case Details
Before: Supreme Court
Case Title: Siddharth v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Snajay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://pixabay.com/photos/police-handcuffs-arrest-detention-2122373/