Case Analysis: Siddhart v. State Of U.P. & Anr (2021)

Introduction

Case name – Sidhhart v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2021)

Date of Judgement – 16^th August 2021

Deciding Court – Supreme Court of India

Legislations Involved

Sec 170 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• This Section indicates that if an investigation is conducted in accordance with the Chapter and the official in charge of the police station determines that there is sufficient evidence, the accused will be taken into custody and brought before a Magistrate. The chargesheet submitted against such an accused will be recorded by the Magistrate.

Facts

The Appellant, who claimed to be a supplier of products, was named in a seven-year-old FIR among 83 others.

On his behalf, it was asserted that the Appellant had joined the investigative process and that a chargesheet was ready to be filed. The Appellant, however, decided to apply the High Court for anticipatory bail after receiving an arrest memo.

After the High Court denied the bail application, the Appellant went to the Supreme Court. To bolster the arguments, a similar instance in which a person was granted interim relief was cited.

The Respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the arrest note was filed because the Trial Court believed that the charge-sheet could not be entered on record until a person was brought into custody under Section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue

Is it necessary to place an accused in jail before the charge sheet may be recorded under Section 170 of the CrPC?

Judgement

The Supreme Court, in accepting the appeal, held that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not require the Officer-in-Charge to arrest each and every accused at the time the charge sheet is filed. When the accused has cooperated with the investigation and the investigating officer does not believe the accused will flee or disobey the summons, the officer is not required to arrest or detain the accused. The Court also stated that the term “custody” as used in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not refer to either police or judicial custody, but rather refers to the investigating officer’s presentation of the accused before the court at the time of filing the charge sheet. The Hon’ble court emphasised that making an arrest regular might inflict irreparable harm to a person’s reputation and self-esteem.

While noting that personal liberty is an essential component of our constitutional mission, the Court decided that the following conditions give rise to the need to arrest an accused during an investigation:

When a custodial inquiry is required, or when a horrific crime is committed, or when there is a risk that the accused would sway witnesses, or when the accused may flee the country.

With these remarks, the Supreme Court granted the appeal and reversed the High Court’s decision.

Probable Future Impacts of Judgement

The case serves as an excellent illustration of how Section 170 of the CrPC may be utilized to prohibit police from making unnecessary arrests of suspects. As the Court correctly pointed out, the Section does not require arrest, but it does require custody. Custody does not necessarily imply arrest, and if it does, it will have a significant impact on the accused’s image.

Despite the fact that the decision appears to be constitutionally solid, there is still a loophole. As previously indicated, the investigating officer will not arrest the accused if he feels he would not flee or ignore the summons. As a result, the investigating officer retains authority; it is up to him to decide whether or not the accused will flee. However, the National Police Commission’s Third Report specifically identified the power of arrest as the primary cause of police department corruption. The bulk of arrests were made in connection with small cases, as mentioned in the report, and hence could not be considered required for crime prevention.

Furthermore, the imprisonment of these individuals resulted in a significant financial outlay for their upkeep, which might have been avoided. It was also revealed that 43.2 percent of the entire cost in the associated jails was spent on convicts who were not required to be arrested at all. Finally, it may be stated that in Siddharth’s case, the Apex Court attempted to emphasise the Right to Liberty in the context of arrest and imprisonment, and was partially effective. However, in doing so, it gave the police a great deal of discretionary authority, which should be noted as a cause for worry given the statistics demonstrating the police department’s attitude toward the problem is anything from noble.

The article has been contributed by Shankh Shukla, a student at NMIMS Bangalore.