Court cannot insist on custody or bail applications for accused not arrested during investigation upon filing of charge-sheet.

The petitioners, former officials of the Marwar Muslim Educational and Welfare Society, were accused of cheating and forgery (FIR No. 84/2022) related to the fabrication of meeting minutes and constitutional amendments

Despite a negative final report being initially proposed, a charge-sheet was eventually filed. Throughout the investigation, the petitioners were not arrested and were protected by a prior High Court order

On 19.02.2026, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Jodhpur, issued bailable warrants against the petitioners upon the filing of the charge-sheet, observing that their entitlement to bail would only be considered upon their appearance

The petitioners challenged this order under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), fearing custodial remand despite their cooperation with the investigation

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in issuing bailable warrants and insisting on a bail application for accused persons who were never arrested during the investigation and where custody was not required by the investigating agency

2. Whether the term "custody" under Section 170 CrPC (now relevant provisions under BNSS) necessitates physical or judicial custody at the time of filing a charge-sheet

The Court primarily applied Section 170 CrPC (corresponding to current procedural laws), which governs the production of an accused before a Magistrate upon completion of an investigation

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

It further applied Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), holding that if custody is not required, the Court may secure presence via Section 88 CrPC bonds without requiring a formal bail application

Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2008), which cautions against the mechanical issuance of warrants

The Court reasoned that the issuance of bailable warrants was unnecessary as the petitioners had cooperated throughout the investigation and the case relied almost exclusively on documentary evidence

Justice Sandhu noted that the word "custody" in Section 170 CrPC connotes the mere presentation of the accused before the Court, not necessarily police or judicial confinement

Since the Investigating Agency did not find arrest necessary during the probe, the Trial Court erred by mechanically issuing warrants instead of summons

The Court observed that personal liberty should not be compromised for "routine" arrests when the presence of the accused can be secured through bonds under Section 88 CrPC, especially since the offences were not heinous and there was no evidence of the petitioners evading the process of law

The Court held that for compliance with Section 170, there is no inherent need for arrest or a formal bail application if the accused is forwarded for framing of charges

The petitioners were directed to appear before the Trial Court on the next date, and the Trial Court was ordered to accept their Personal/Surety Bonds for securing their presence during the trial without taking them into custody