Accused not arrested during investigation need not be taken into custody for filing charge-sheet or considering bail.

The petitioners, former office-bearers of a welfare society, were accused in FIR No. 84/2022 of cheating and manipulating the society’s constitution to conceal financial irregularities

During the investigation, the police did not arrest the petitioners, and the High Court had granted them interim protection until the filing of the charge-sheet

Upon filing the charge-sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jodhpur, issued bailable warrants against the petitioners on February 19, 2026, observing that their entitlement to bail would be considered only upon their physical appearance/custody

The petitioners challenged this order under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), arguing that custody is not mandatory for filing a charge-sheet when they have cooperated with the investigation

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in issuing bailable warrants at the first instance after a charge-sheet was filed without the accused being arrested during the investigation

2. Whether the term "custody" under Section 170 CrPC (now relevant provisions under BNSS) mandates the physical arrest and production of the accused at the time of filing the charge-sheet

The Court applied Section 170 of the CrPC and the principles governing the issuance of process.

It relied on Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 1 SCC 676, which held that Section 170 does not impose an obligation to arrest every accused at the time of filing a charge-sheet if they are not a flight risk

It further applied Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, clarifying that the court can secure presence under Section 88 CrPC by taking bonds without requiring a bail application or remand

Lastly, it cited Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2008 SC 251, which mandates that warrants should not be issued mechanically if summons suffice

The Court reasoned that since the offences were not heinous and the investigation was primarily based on documentary evidence, there was no justification for the Trial Court to issue bailable warrants

The Court noted that the Investigating Agency itself did not find arrest necessary during the probe, and the petitioners had a history of cooperation

It emphasized that "custody" in the context of filing a charge-sheet connotes the mere physical presentation of the accused before the court, not necessarily police or judicial remand

The Court found the Trial Court’s insistence on considering bail only after appearance—implying potential custody—contrary to the mandate in Satender Kumar Antil, which suggests that presence can be secured via bonds under Section 88 without a formal bail application in such circumstances

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated February 19, 2026, to the extent of the issuance of bailable warrants. The High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court on the next date and ordered the Trial Court to accept their personal/surety bonds for securing their presence during the trial without taking them into custody