A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, questioned the practice of arresting accused persons after the filing of a chargesheet and the court’s cognizance of the same. A bench observed that such a practice is unwarranted, particularly when the accused was not arrested during the investigation. The decision aligns with previous judgments emphasizing the principle of arrest only when necessary, to prevent misuse of authority.
Facts
The petitioner, accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was not arrested during the investigation. After the filing of the chargesheet and the trial court taking cognizance, the police attempted to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court, seeking bail and challenging the arrest after the chargesheet was filed. The petitioner argued that such an arrest after cognizance is unnecessary and contrary to established legal principles.
Issues
1. Whether arresting an accused after the filing of the chargesheet and the court’s cognizance of the matter is justified when the accused was not arrested during the investigation.
2. Whether the practice followed by the Uttar Pradesh Police aligns with the guidelines set forth in previous Supreme Court judgments.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the arrest was unwarranted as he had cooperated with the investigation. It was submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not mandate arrest after the filing of a chargesheet unless the accused is likely to evade trial or tamper with evidence. The petitioner relied on Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021), emphasizing that routine arrests post-cognizance violates principles of liberty and fair procedure.
Contentions of the Respondent
The State argued that the arrest was part of the procedure followed in Uttar Pradesh after chargesheet filing and cognizance. It contended that the arrest was necessary to ensure the petitioner’s presence in court. The State distinguished the present case from the guidelines in Siddharth and Satender Kumar Antil, suggesting those cases were fact-specific.
Analysis by the Court
Irregularity of Arrest Post-Chargesheet: The Court held that arresting the accused post-cognizance, especially when they were not arrested during the investigation, is “unusual” and “makes no sense.” Guidelines in Siddharth and Satender Kumar Antil: The Court reiterated its stand from Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) that police are not obligated to arrest an accused when filing a chargesheet unless there is a compelling reason. Similarly, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021), the Court emphasized that routine arrests should be avoided. Unjustified Detention: Referring to Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Court observed that arrests should not be mechanical or procedural after the filing of the chargesheet. Fair Trial and Liberty: The Court underscored the importance of liberty, stating that arrest should only be a measure to ensure a fair trial and not used arbitrarily.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that:
1. Arresting an accused post-chargesheet and cognizance, when not arrested during the investigation, lacks rationale.
2. Investigative agencies should ensure arrests are based on necessity rather than procedural formalities
