When the police have completed their investigation and found enough evidence to pursue a criminal case, they file an indictment. However, if, at the end of the investigation, they have found nothing to prove the commission of a crime, they will propose to close the case by submitting a final report to the magistrate. An indictment is different from the first information report (FIR), the basic document that describes a crime committed. It is usually one or more FIRs and accuses a person or organization (some or all) of the crimes set out in these FIRs. Once the indictment is filed in court, the prosecution of the accused begins in the court system. It has also been said that we cannot and must not be too technical when it comes to personal freedom and that we must lean towards personal freedom. In Aslam Babalal Desai (1992), the Supreme Court held: The provisions of the Code, in particular sections 57 (person who may not be detained for more than 24 hours) and 167 (detention, pre-trial detention and bail), reflect Parliament`s concern that, once a person has been assaulted by the police, She will be arrested without a court order or arrest warrant. the investigation must be carried out with the utmost urgency and completed within the maximum period allowed by Article 167(2) of the EA. It can be seen that this reservation was introduced into the Code by extending the periods of detention of the arrested accused.

Therefore, the prosecution must know that if it does not demonstrate a sense of urgency in the investigation of the matter and does not file or fails to file an indictment within the prescribed time, the accused would be entitled to bail and the order to that effect under section 167(2) would be an order under section 437 (1) or (2) {if bail is taken in the case of an offence not eligible for bail. or section 439 (1) {Special Bail Powers of the High Court or Court of Session} of the Code. Since Article 167 does not allow the deposit to be cancelled, the power to renounce the deposit may be conferred only in Article 437(5) or Article 439(2) of the guarantee. The deposit may then be cancelled on the basis of the consideration valid for the cancellation of the advance payment granted under Article 437(1) or (2) or Article 439(1) of the Code. A bail case under section 167(2) ZPO shall not be submitted if the indictment is filed before the expiry of 90 days or 60 days from the date of first pre-trial detention. The right to bail expires upon the filing of the indictment. Standard bail is a kind of blow to the fingers of the police for not completing the investigation and submitting the final report within 90 or 60 days of the accused`s first remand. However, bail is not the remedy if a judge does not issue a formal court order extending pre-trial detention at the request of the Public Prosecutor`s Office. The maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit means – an act of the Court of Justice must not harm anyone, cannot be ignored. Such a ground for filing cannot be justified either under Paragraph 167(2) or Paragraph 437 of the ZPO. Endnotes Pursuant to section 173(2)(i), the report must be filed immediately after the completion of the investigation in the form prescribed by the state government and must contain: The filing of an indictment signifies the completion of the first part of the criminal justice system, which includes investigations after the filing of the I.I.F.

The complainant, Siddharth, along with 83 other individuals, filed an FIR against her seven years ago. The applicant was a sandstone supplier and an FIR was filed against him for his participation in a conspiracy and criminal breach of trust committed by former UP ministers and senior State officials, including Nasimuddin Siddiqui (former Minister) and Babu Singh Khushawa (former Minister), in relation to a project launched by the State Government in 2007 to build parks and museums. which would have resulted in a loss of rupees. 14,000 crore for the Treasury. The Supreme Court of India ruled that there was no need to arrest the accused before an indictment could be brought before a magistrates` court. In accordance with all the above-mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court, it was decided that article 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not impose any obligation on the officer in charge to arrest each accused at the time of filing the indictment. If the investigator does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey a summons, he or she does not need to be remanded in custody. In paragraph 170, the term “custody” refers only to the presence of the accused by the investigator in court at the time of the filing of the indictment. An indictment is a report submitted by the police to the judge after the investigation has been completed and the police believe the accused is guilty. Article 170 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the officer in charge of the police station (where the first information report was filed) considers, after investigation, that there is sufficient evidence or grounds for arrest, he may do so and send a report to the judge. This article also requires that the defendant be referred to the judge for a new trial.

It is the filing of the indictment at which the hearing of a criminal case begins. Police have no deadline to file the indictment or a final report. Even the magistrate cannot force the police to file the indictment within a certain time limit. But if the person charged with a crime is in jail, they have either 60 days (if the sentence for the crime is less than 10 years) or 90 days (if the penalty for the crime is more than 10 years) to file the indictment. The Court of First Instance had previously refused to accept the indictment and held that the indictment would not be registered under article 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the person were not detained. In addition, the Supreme Court in Allahabad refused to grant the accused early bail. The decisions were therefore appealed to the Supreme Court. The complainant`s lawyer stated that it was not necessary to question the accused in custody because he did not fear that the complainant would evade justice or manipulate the evidence. It was also argued that the applicant was merely a supplier unrelated to the alleged infringement.