Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that it is not mandatory for the police officer to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of chargesheet. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2 judge bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. 

Facts 

• The appellant in this case claims to be supplier of stone for which royalty was paid in advance to these holders and claims not to be involved in the tendering process. 
• The appellant had already joined the investigation before approaching the Court and the charge sheet was ready to be filed. 
• An arrest memo was issued against the appellant. 
• Hence, the appellant approached the Court for anticipatory bail.   

  Issue Involved 

• Whether the anticipatory bail application of the appellant should be allowed? 

Observation  

• The provision under consideration in the case is Section 170 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Court observed the law laid down in the following cases: 
  • High Court of Delhi v. State (2018): The Court observed in this case that it is not essential in every case involving a cognizable and non-bailable offence that the accused be taken into custody when the chargesheet/ final report is filed. 
  • Deendayal Kishanchand v. State of Gujarat (1982): The Court observed that the refusal by the criminal Courts to accept the chargesheet without production of accused persons is not justified by any provision of law. 
• The Court finally held the following: 
  • There is no obligation on the police officer to arrest each and every accused person at the time of filing of the chargesheet. 
  • It was observed that if the investigating officer does not believe that the accused would abscond or disobey the summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. 
  • An observation was made that the word “custody” used in Section 170 of CrPC does not contemplate either judicial or police custody, but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused before the Court while filing the chargesheet. 
• The Court made a significant observation that there is a distinction between existence of power to arrest and the justification for exercise of the power of arrest. 

Conclusion 

This is the landmark judgment which talks about the important rights related to personal liberty and lays down that a person should not be arrested arbitrarily without any justification.  

[Original Judgment]