Release of accused when evidence deficient
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with release of accused when evidence deficient. If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on h The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
If, upon an
investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.
Section 169, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 189 Release of accused when evidence deficient Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Release of accused when evidence deficient
-
Mohd. Jalees Ansari vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The requirement of prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act is mandatory and absolute in nature, and non-compliance renders subsequent proceedings invalid. However, where such prior approval exists and is contemporaneously documented, confessions recorded under Section 15 of TADA Act are admissible as substantive evidence not only against the confessing accused but also against co-accused, provided that confessions against co-accused are corroborated by independent evidence or consistent statements of other confessing accused. Confessions recorded in connection with different crimes are admissible in cases under trial if such confessions cover the crime in question, regardless of outcome in the original crime. However, if TADA provisions were not validly invoked in the crime in which confession was originally recorded, such confession cannot be relied upon in another crime. Conviction cannot rest solely on confession of a co-accused without independent corroboration.
On this section: Application for discharge of accused when investigation does not disclose sufficient evidence; applied in context of discharge of A1 from Bombay Bomb Blast case
-
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A medical professional cannot be prosecuted for culpable homicide (Section 304, IPC) merely because a patient dies after receiving treatment. Criminal prosecution requires either intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would probably cause death. Such mental elements cannot be inferred from the act of administering medical treatment to a voluntary patient. However, if facts establish gross negligence or rash conduct by the doctor in administering treatment (such as lack of requisite medical skill, failure to exercise reasonable care, or administering improper/poisonous injections), the case may proceed under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) which does not require the same degree of mental culpability. The appropriate charge must be calibrated to the evidence, and courts must distinguish between culpable homicide and negligence when issuing criminal process against medical practitioners.
On this section: Final report by police - police submitted final report stating no offence committed. Complainant filed Protest Petition challenging this report.
-
Suman vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is named in a first information report or complaint with allegation of committing a particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not file a charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure if from the evidence collected or produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which such person can be tried with other accused. The non-filing of charge-sheet by police against such person is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 319 CrPC.
On this section: Police discharge of accused during investigation; principle discussed that persons discharged under Section 169 can be proceeded against under Section 319 if evidence emerges
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The requirement of documents for the purpose of investigation is to be examined and decided by the Investigating Officer, and any direction to interfere in the same is not justified. The Investigating Officer has the unfettered discretion to retain documents during the pendency of investigation, and the court cannot examine the relevancy of seized documents at the initial stage of investigation or direct their return based on claims of government functioning disruption. The scope of investigation cannot be curtailed by the scope of search warrant application, and item 10 of the search warrant annexure allowing seizure of 'any other documents relevant to the case' permits the Investigating Officer to seize documents beyond those specifically listed.
On this section: Formation of opinion by Investigating Officer regarding sufficiency of evidence; Magistrate has no role at investigation stage
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the parties. Perused the relevant record of this case. Looking to the fact of this case, in the present case the FIR was lodged in the year 2017 and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed an inquiry report under the provision of Section 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure in form of "C" summary report in the favour of the present applicant. But, ultimately Court has discarded summary inquiry report and has taken cognizance against the present applicant by issuing non-bailable warrant on dated 4th October, 2023, in which the learned Trail Court has …
Questions about Section 169
What have the courts held on Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Release of accused when evidence deficient. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 169, section 169 CRPC, section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 169 in bnss and crpc 169 report. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 189 (Release of accused when evidence deficient), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 169, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.