<p>The Supreme Court has said it is not mandatory to take the accused in custody at the time of filing a charge sheet, as an arrest, made in a routine manner, can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.</p>.<p>"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," a bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.</p>.<p>Dealing with Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court said the word “custody” appearing there does not contemplate 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, the bench added.</p>.<p>The court expressed concern on trial courts insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge sheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the CrPC, saying such a course was misplaced and contrary to the very intent of the provision.</p>.<p>"We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond," the bench pointed out.</p>.<p>The top court passed its order on an appeal filed by Siddharth against the arrest memo issued against him in an FIR lodged seven years ago in Uttar Pradesh.</p>.<p>"Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it," the bench said, citing upon a previous judgement in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP (1994).</p>.<p>The bench said we can think of no reason why at this stage the appellant must be arrested before the charge sheet is taken on record as he has already joined the investigation and assured to appear before the trial court on summons.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court has said it is not mandatory to take the accused in custody at the time of filing a charge sheet, as an arrest, made in a routine manner, can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person.</p>.<p>"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," a bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.</p>.<p>Dealing with Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court said the word “custody” appearing there does not contemplate 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, the bench added.</p>.<p>The court expressed concern on trial courts insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge sheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the CrPC, saying such a course was misplaced and contrary to the very intent of the provision.</p>.<p>"We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond," the bench pointed out.</p>.<p>The top court passed its order on an appeal filed by Siddharth against the arrest memo issued against him in an FIR lodged seven years ago in Uttar Pradesh.</p>.<p>"Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it," the bench said, citing upon a previous judgement in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP (1994).</p>.<p>The bench said we can think of no reason why at this stage the appellant must be arrested before the charge sheet is taken on record as he has already joined the investigation and assured to appear before the trial court on summons.</p>.<p><strong>Check out DH's latest videos:</strong></p>
