Introduction

• This case revolves around the legality of arrest during investigation by the authorities and interpretation of bail provisions under the criminal law.

Facts

• In this case, an inquiry was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the petitioner for which a chargesheet was filed by the CBI in the court.
  • No arrest was made during the inquiry and after filing the charge sheet against the accused.
• The court took the charge sheet on record and issued summons against the petitioner for his appearance in court.
• However, the petitioner filed an application of anticipatory bail and did not appear in the court.
  • The application was rejected by the court and a non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner for his nonappearance.
  • Court also questioned petitioner about the reason of his fear of arrest and his nonappearance for which he stated that it is a general trend in the State of UP to arrest the person after filing of the chargesheet on the day of his appearance even when he may not be arrested during inquiry.
• The court, after hearing the contention clarified the guidelines and categorized the offences in which arrest to be made and, also the cases where no arrest can be made during the investigation.

Issue Involved

• Whether arrest of a person during inquiry, and either before or after filing of the chargesheet is valid or not?

Observations

• The Court observed that various provisions of criminal law related to arrest have been misinterpreted by the authorities during the investigation and sometimes after filing of the charge sheet.
• Such practices led to detention of a person without the pronouncement of the sentence which is against the Right of Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India and also results into the arrest of innocents in some cases.
• The court also stated that certain responsibility and accountability is expected form the courts, authorities and police officers to follow the concept Presumption of Innocence which entails that no purpose is fulfilled by arresting a person until proven guilty.
• The court also observed that application of Principle of Natural Justice and proper interpretation of constitutional provisions is required for better protection of individuals from arbitrary arrests and for the protection of fundamental right to liberty.
• The court issued broader interpretation of various terms related to bail such as Trail and bail and sections such as Section 41, Section41A, Section 167, Section 170, etc. of the Code by referring various cases and landmark judgements.
• The court also categorized various offences where arrest cannot be made.
• The court concluded the case by issuing guidelines based on the interpretation of section 41 and section 41A and by highlighting the duties of Central and State Governments in the matters related to bail.
• Compliance with all these guidelines by the authorities and courts is a must.
• The courts and authorities must consider these guidelines while making an arrest and passing judgements related to detention of a person and rejecting bail applications.

Conclusion

• The court accepted the Special Leave petition and made efforts to bring the concept of “Jail Is An Exception And Bail Is A Right”