A persistent myth in criminal practice is that the filing of a chargesheet must be accompanied by the accused’s arrest — that investigating officers are obliged to produce every accused in custody, and that courts should insist on it. The Supreme Court laid the myth to rest in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (16 August 2021), holding that the provision corresponding to the police report does not oblige the officer in charge to arrest each accused at the time of filing the chargesheet. This article explains the rule, its statutory footing under the BNSS, and the practical sequence that follows when an unarrested accused receives summons.
The rule and its rationale
Investigations conclude in a police report to the court — the chargesheet. The old assumption was mechanical: report plus accused, in custody. Siddharth re-read the provision’s text and purpose. The Court reasoned that arrest visits serious reputational and personal harm, and that an accused who has cooperated throughout the investigation, and against whom no custodial need is shown, ought not be arrested merely so the paperwork looks complete. The “custody” contemplated at the filing stage is the accused’s presentation before the court taking cognizance — attendance, not incarceration.
The BNSS landscape
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 carries the architecture forward: the police report provision (Section 193 BNSS, corresponding to Section 173 CrPC), the forwarding provision (Section 190 BNSS, corresponding to Section 170 CrPC), and the arrest provisions (Sections 35 and 47–60 BNSS) which codify notice-of-appearance practice for offences punishable up to seven years. The combined effect: for a large class of offences, an accused who honours notices under Section 35 BNSS may pass through the entire investigation without arrest, and meet the court for the first time as a summoned — not surrendered — party.
The reflex model
Arrest on registration of FIR; bail litigation from day one; chargesheet filed with accused in custody; trial begins with the accused already punished by process.
The Siddharth model
Notice-based cooperation during investigation; no arrest absent custodial need; chargesheet filed without arrest; summons; appearance with bonds; trial on merits.
First appearance without prior arrest: the sequence
The Siddharth principle is a shield, not a guarantee. An accused who stops cooperating, evades notices or approaches trial dates casually forfeits its benefit — courts that were never asked to consider custody can always be persuaded that conduct now requires it. The rule protects the cooperative; it does not immunise the evasive.
The takeaway
The filing of a chargesheet without arrest is a lawful, increasingly common terminus of a cooperative investigation. For the accused it means the decisive work happens early — honouring notices, documenting cooperation — and the first court appearance is an administrative step rather than a custody battle. For complainants it is a reminder that the strength of a prosecution is measured by its evidence, not by whether the accused spent the investigation in jail.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Siddharth v. State of U.P. decide?
The Supreme Court (Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.) held that the chargesheet provision — then Section 170 CrPC — “does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the chargesheet”, and that the word “custody” there means presenting the accused before the court, not police or judicial custody. Routine arrest of a cooperating accused merely to complete the filing is contrary to the provision’s intent.
When is arrest during investigation still justified?
Where custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary, the offence is heinous, there is a real possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, or the accused may abscond. The distinction is between arrest as an investigative need and arrest as a reflex — the former survives, the latter was deprecated.
What should an accused do on receiving summons after such a chargesheet?
Appear on the date fixed, with counsel, and comply with the court’s directions for bonds. Under the BNSS scheme the court secures attendance through bonds and sureties; appearance in response to summons in a bailable or summons-triable case is routinely followed by admission to bail as of course, and even in warrant cases courts regularly accept bonds where the investigation never required custody.
Does non-arrest mean the case is weak?
No inference either way. Non-arrest reflects the investigating officer’s assessment that custody was unnecessary — cooperation, documentary nature of the evidence, or completed recoveries. The merits are tested at charge and trial as in any other case.