<p>The Supreme Court order dispensing with the need to arrest every accused routinely, especially when he is cooperating with the investigation, is a landmark judgement going a long way in upholding the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under the Constitution. “Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful, does not mandate that arrest must be made,” the court observed. Though the relevant law has been read down by several high courts, the lower judiciary often continues to insist on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite to taking cognizance of the charge sheet under Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In the instant case, the appellant, who had joined the investigation in an FIR registered against him and others seven years ago, was sought to be arrested at the time of filing the charge sheet. The court, while granting bail to the accused, rightly deprecated the trial court’s view that unless a person is taken into custody, the charge sheet will not be taken on record, and has at the same time observed that Section 370 does not impose an obligation on the investigating officer to arrest each and every accused.</p>.<p>The order is significant because it lays down in no uncertain terms that the accused merely needs to be present before the court concerned at the time of filing of the charge sheet and that his presence need not be secured by taking him into police or judicial custody, especially if he has cooperated with the investigations throughout. Leaving nothing to ambiguity, the apex court has clarified that the occasion to arrest an accused would arise when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of the witness being influenced. Thus, the investigating officer would be under no compulsion from the trial court to arrest an accused unless he has reasons to believe that the suspect will abscond or disobey summons.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that bail, not jail, is the dominant principle of law, but it is often observed in the breach, with the underprivileged usually languishing in prison for years. Though the top court had laid down guidelines for arrests way back in 1994, they continue to be ignored both by the police and trial courts. There are several such higher court orders aimed at upholding the liberty of citizens which have not percolated down to the implementation level. Thus, it is imperative that state governments regularly hold refresher courses for the lower judiciary, the police and prosecutors so that they are abreast of the latest case laws, especially those concerning individual rights.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court order dispensing with the need to arrest every accused routinely, especially when he is cooperating with the investigation, is a landmark judgement going a long way in upholding the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under the Constitution. “Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful, does not mandate that arrest must be made,” the court observed. Though the relevant law has been read down by several high courts, the lower judiciary often continues to insist on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite to taking cognizance of the charge sheet under Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). In the instant case, the appellant, who had joined the investigation in an FIR registered against him and others seven years ago, was sought to be arrested at the time of filing the charge sheet. The court, while granting bail to the accused, rightly deprecated the trial court’s view that unless a person is taken into custody, the charge sheet will not be taken on record, and has at the same time observed that Section 370 does not impose an obligation on the investigating officer to arrest each and every accused.</p>.<p>The order is significant because it lays down in no uncertain terms that the accused merely needs to be present before the court concerned at the time of filing of the charge sheet and that his presence need not be secured by taking him into police or judicial custody, especially if he has cooperated with the investigations throughout. Leaving nothing to ambiguity, the apex court has clarified that the occasion to arrest an accused would arise when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of the witness being influenced. Thus, the investigating officer would be under no compulsion from the trial court to arrest an accused unless he has reasons to believe that the suspect will abscond or disobey summons.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that bail, not jail, is the dominant principle of law, but it is often observed in the breach, with the underprivileged usually languishing in prison for years. Though the top court had laid down guidelines for arrests way back in 1994, they continue to be ignored both by the police and trial courts. There are several such higher court orders aimed at upholding the liberty of citizens which have not percolated down to the implementation level. Thus, it is imperative that state governments regularly hold refresher courses for the lower judiciary, the police and prosecutors so that they are abreast of the latest case laws, especially those concerning individual rights.</p>