9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. The short issue before us is whether the anticipatory bail application of the appellant ought to have been allowed. We may note that as per the Order dated 02.8.2021 we had granted interim protection. The fact which emerges is that the appellant along with 83 other private persons were sought to be roped in a FIR which was registered seven years ago. The appellant claims to be supplier of stone for which royalty was paid in advance to these holders and claims not to be involved in the tendering process. Similar perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Court on its own motion v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2004 (72) DRJ 629], the Delhi High Court dealt with an argument similar to the contention of the respondent that Section 170 Cr.P.C. prevents the trial court from taking a chargesheet on record unless the accused is taken into custody. The relevant extracts are as under: "15. Word "custody" appearing in this Section does not contemplate either police or judicial custody. It merely connotes the presentation of accused by the Investigating Officer before the Court at the time of filing of the chargesheet whereafter the role of the Court starts. Had it not been so the Investigating Officer would not have been vested with powers to release a person on bail in a bailable offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be necessary. Such an arrest may also be necessary if the concerned Investigating Officer or Officer-in-charge of the Police Station thinks that presence of accused will be difficult to procure because of grave and serious nature of crime as the possibility of his absconding or disobeying the process or fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out." In a subsequent judgment the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Court on its own Motion v. State [(2018) 254 DLT 641 (DB)] relied on these observations in Re Court on its own Motion (supra) and observed that it is not essential in every case involving a cognizable and non-bailable offence that an accused be taken into custody when the chargesheet/final report is filed. The Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olice submit the charge-sheet, it is the duty of the Court to accept it especially in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code which creates a limitation of taking cognizance of offence. Likewise, police authorities also should impress on all police officers that if charge-sheet is not accepted for any such reason, then attention of the Sessions Judge should be drawn to these facts and get suitable orders so that such difficulties would not arise henceforth." We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. We are, in fact, faced with a situation where contrary to the observations in Joginder Kumar's case how a police officer has to deal with a scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as a pre-requisite formality to take the charge sheet on record in view of the provisions of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. We consider such a course misplaced and contrary to the very intent of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case when the appellant has joined the investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
