Siddharth Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether the anticipatory bail application of the appellant, Siddharth, should have been granted. The appellant was implicated in a FIR registered seven years prior, along with 83 other private individuals, for allegedly supplying stone with advance royalty payment and claimed no involvement in the tendering process. He had joined the investigation. The trial court reportedly refused to take the chargesheet on record unless the accused was taken into custody, citing Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court, after examining Section 170 Cr.P.C. and relevant judicial precedents from the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, disagreed with the trial court’s interpretation. The court emphasized that the word “custody” in Section 170 merely implies the Investigating Officer presenting the accused at the time of filing the chargesheet, not necessarily physical or judicial custody. It stated that arresting every accused in non-bailable offenses at the time of chargesheet filing is not mandatory, especially when the accused has cooperated with the investigation and there’s no apprehension of absconding or witness tampering. The court highlighted that personal liberty is a crucial constitutional aspect and routine arrests can harm a person’s reputation and self-esteem. Finding that the appellant had joined the investigation and the chargesheet was ready after seven years, the Supreme Court saw no reason for his arrest before the chargesheet was taken on record. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the relief sought.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
