Police Arrests After Chargesheet and Cognizance Serve No Purpose: Supreme Court
Pranav B Prem
The Supreme Court criticized the practice of police arresting accused individuals after filing a chargesheet and once the court has taken cognizance of it, terming such actions as 'unusual' and stating that it 'makes no sense.' A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan expressed these views while granting bail to a petitioner in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The court observed "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense."
Case Background
The petitioner, Musheer Alam, faced charges under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved allegations of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during a specified period. The investigation, initiated by the Anti-Corruption Department, culminated in a chargesheet filed in the CBI Court, Gorakhpur. Despite completing the investigation and filing the chargesheet, the petitioner was not arrested during the investigation. However, the Uttar Pradesh police sought to arrest him post-chargesheet filing, prompting the Supreme Court's intervention.
Court’s Observations
The bench noted that arresting an accused after filing the chargesheet and court cognizance serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the accused was not detained during the investigation. The Court remarked: “We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, then the accused should be asked to appear before the concerned court and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. If at all the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.”
Relief Granted
Acknowledging that the petitioner had not obstructed the investigation and the chargesheet had already been filed, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court and furnish bail to its satisfaction.
Contextual Precedents
The Supreme Court referred to its previous rulings in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021), which highlighted the unnecessary arrests of individuals who had cooperated with investigations or were not arrested during the probe. These judgments laid down guidelines to curb routine arrests post-chargesheet filing, emphasizing that courts must avoid mechanical adherence to such practices.
The Court's observations reinforce the principle that arrests should not be used as a mere formality or a means of harassment.
Cause Title: Musheer Alam v State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.18081/2024
Date: January-17-2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
