New Delhi: Holding personal freedom as an important aspect of a constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has said that the arrest should not be done routinely when the defendant cooperates in the investigation and there is no reason for Abscond.
or influence the investigation.
Judge Sanjay Kishan Kiss Kuli and Hrishikesh Roy said the arrest caused countless losses to a person’s reputation and self-esteem and police should not use such actions just because the arrest was permitted based on the law.
“The incident to arrest the defendant during the investigation appeared when the custodian investigation became necessary or it was a cruel crime or where there was a possibility of influencing witnesses or defendants to escape.
Just because the arrest can be made because the legitimate thing is not mandate.
The arrest must be made.
The difference must be made.
Made between the presence of strength to capture and justification for implementing it, “Bench said.
The bench regretted that even though there were comprehensive guidelines issued by Pekoran Petund Pekoran in 1994, routine arrests were being made and even lower courts insisted on such courses when chargesheet was filed in violations that could not be swallowed and can be punished.
“If the investigative officer has no reason to believe that the defendant will escape or not obey the call and have, in fact, so far working with the investigation, we failed to appreciate why there must be coercion to the officers to arrest the defendant,” it was said.
While interpreting part 170 of the criminal procedure code where the trial court insisted on the arrest of the defendant, the bench said it did not impose an obligation to the officers responsible for capturing each and each accused of being submitted by Chargesheet.
Bench refers to various HC assessments held that the Criminal Court cannot refuse to accept Chargesheet only because the defendant has not been arrested and produced before the court.
“We agree with the above view of the High Court and want to give our imprimatur to the view of the judiciary saying …
we have, in fact, find cases where the defendant has worked with an investigation throughout and at Chargesheet Being soldiers submitted, no Can be swallowed has been issued for its production based on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the defendant and produce it before the court, “Bench said.
“Word custody that appeared in the part 170 CRPC did not reflect on the police or custody of the judiciary but only connotated the presentation accused by investigative officers in front of the court while submitting a chargesheet,” he said.
The court issued orders on the application of allegations of seeking anticipatory guarantee as a memo of the arrest was released against him after the trial court above took a view that unless the person was detained, the chargesheet would not be taken in the note in the view.
from part 170 from CRPC.