To exercise the discretion in issuing warrants of arrest, Courts are required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87, CrPC: Supreme Court

Case Title: Aman Preet Singh v. CBI

The Supreme Court stated that when accepting a charge sheet, the Magistrate or Court must always issue a summons and not an arrest warrant.

The justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M. Sundresh on the bench further noted that it would go against the guiding principles for the grant of bail to abruptly order an accused's arrest simply because a charge sheet has been filed if they had been out on bail and free for years without even being detained during an investigation.

The court observed that if he seeks to exercise his discretion in issuing arrest warrants, he must record the reasons that the accused has either been absconding or has refused to obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him.

In this case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Bhubaneshwar, observed in his order that because the accused had been charged with Economic offences, it was appropriate to issue non-bailable arrest warrants against them.

While considering this case, the Supreme Court noted at the outset that it is, yet another case based on a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Section 170, Cr.P.C.

Taking note of this, the court stated that these instructions are the guiding principle for a Magistrate exercising powers under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. According to the court:

"The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge sheet forthwith and proceed per the procedure laid down under Section 173, Cr.P.C. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of the summons and not a warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C. that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. The observations in Sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are like caution."

While dismissing the appeal, the court stated that the judgments in Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and the current one should be circulated to the trial courts by the High Courts. According to the court, the problem appears to be pervasive.