Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Entitlement to bail in event charge sheet not filed by the police within the stipulated period – The appellant-accused was arrested on 21.02.2020 u/ss. 457, 380, 457(2), 380(2), 411(2) and 414(2) IPC – After being in judicial custody for more than 73 days and nonfiling of charge-sheet – The appellant filed for bail by default as contemplated u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. before the High Court – The High Court referring to an order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 took the view that the Supreme Court’s Order extended the period for submission of charge-sheet prescribed u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – On appeal, held: The Order dated 23.03.2020 was passed to protect the litigants/ lawyers whose petitions/ application/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings considering the challenge faced by the Country on account of Covid-19 Virus – When the Supreme Court passed the order for extending limitation for filing petitions/applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings, the Order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings – The Order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge-sheet by police as contemplated u/s 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. – Therefore, even during the lockdown the investigating officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (incharge) – Thus, the High Court committed error in extending the restriction to filing of charge-sheet by investigating officer in the Order dated 23.03.2020.
Constitution of India – Proclamation of Emergency and Art.
21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – The Single Judge of the High Court held that lockdown announced by the Government of India is akin to the proclamation of Emergency and the restrictions imposed should not give accuse a right to pray for grant of default bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – Held: The Seven Judges Constitution Bench Judgment in K.S. Puthaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others held that life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence – They constitute rights under Natural Law – The human element in the life of an individual is integrally founded on the sanctity of life – In the instant case, the Single Judge of the High Court erred in holding that the lockdown announced by the Government is akin to the proclamation of Emergency and the restrictions imposed during the lockdown should not give the right to an accused to pray for grant of default bail even though charge-sheet has not been filed within the time prescribed u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – The views of the Single Judge of the High Court were not in accordance with law – Accordingly, the judgment of the Single Judge set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The limitation for filing petitions/ applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTT.
before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the chargesheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge). [Para 17] [289-B-F]
2. If the interpretation by the Single Judge in the impugned judgment is taken to its logical end, due to difficulties and due to present pandemic, Police may also not produce an accused within 24 hours before the Magistrate’s Court as contemplated by Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As noted above, the provision of Section 57 as well as Section 167 are supplementary to each other and are the provisions which recognises the Right of Personal Liberty of a person as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 never meant to curtail any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute which was enacted to protect the Personal Liberty of a person. The right of prosecution to file a charge sheet even after a period of 60 days/
90 days is not barred. The prosecution can very well file a charge sheet after 60 days/90 days but without filing a charge sheet they cannot detain an accused beyond a said period when the accused prays to the court to set him at liberty due to nonfiling of the charge sheet within the period prescribed. The right of prosecution to carry on investigation and submit a charge sheet is not akin to right of liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 and reflected in other statutes including Section 167, Cr.P.C. [Para 18] [289-F-H; 290-A-C]
3. This Court, thus, is of the clear opinion that the Single Judge in the impugned judgment erred in holding that the lockdown announced by the Government of India is akin to the proclamation of Emergency. The view of the Single Judge that the restrictions, which have been imposed during period of lockdown by the Government of India should not give right to an accused to pray for grant of default bail even though charge sheet has not been filed within the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law. [Para 25] [294-E-G]
4. This Court, thus, is of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on nonsubmission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. The Single Judge of the High Court committed serious error in reading such restriction in the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020. [Para 26] [294-G-H; 295-A]
K.S.Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others (2017) 10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569 – followed.
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453 : [2001] 2 SCR 878 ; Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam (2017) 15 SCC 67 : [2017] 8 SCR 785 ; Achpal Alias Ramswaroop and Another v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 14 SCC 599 : [2018] 12 SCR 327 ; State of Punjab and Another v. Devans Modern Breweries ltd. and Another (2004) 11 SCC 26 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 930 – relied on.
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521 : [1976] Suppl. SCR
172; Union of India and Others v. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde and Others (1977) 1 SCC 834 : [1977] 2 SCR
719 – referred to.
Settu v. The State (In the High Court of Madras, Crl.OP(MD) No. 5291 of 2020) ; Mohammed Ali v. State of Kerala (In the High Court of Kerala, Bail Application No. 2856 of 2020) ; Pankaj v. State (In the High Court of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.355 of 2020) ; Vivek Sharma v. State of Uttrakhand (In the High Court of
Uttarakhand, First Bail Application No.511 of 2020) – referred to.
POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTT.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.