The Supreme Court has once again highlighted the importance of ensuring that arrests are made only when absolutely necessary during an investigation, stressing that arrests after the filing of a chargesheet serve no meaningful purpose. The Court expressed its disapproval of the practice in Uttar Pradesh, where accused individuals are arrested after the chargesheet has been filed and the court has taken cognizance of the case. The Court has categorically termed this procedure as "unusual" and insisted that it "makes no sense."
In a recent order, a bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ruled that the arrest of an accused after the conclusion of an investigation and the filing of the chargesheet contradicts established legal norms. The bench emphasized, “We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.”
The Court made these observations while granting bail to an accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, who had been cooperating with the investigation and had not been arrested during its course, was granted bail after the chargesheet was filed and the trial court took cognizance of the case.
This latest ruling continues the Court's consistent stance on arrest practices, following previous decisions like the Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh case (2021), in which it had held that arrests should not be routine but only occur when custodial interrogation is necessary or in cases involving serious crimes or potential witness tampering.
The bench also criticized the practice of requiring arrest as a procedural formality for the court to take cognizance of a chargesheet, highlighting that such a course is "misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of CrPC," which does not mandate arrest after the completion of an investigation.
In its 2021 order in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Court had already issued guidelines to prevent routine arrests after chargesheets are filed, especially when the accused has cooperated with the investigation. It had further clarified that arresting an individual simply because it is lawful does not mean that the arrest must be executed.
Picture Source :
