The time limitation of 60/90 days under S. 167 CrPC cannot be extended by Judicial Decision
- shrey singh
- Jun 22, 2020
- 3 min read
S. Kasi v. State Through The Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District
Criminal Appeal no. 452 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (CRL. ) No. 2433/ 2020)
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, M.R. Shah, V. Ramasubramaniam, JJ.
Facts:
The appellant approached the Supreme Court questioning the judgement of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 11.05.2020 wherein the court refused the default bail application of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 21 February, 2020. After the passage of 73 days, the appellant filed an application contended that he is entitled for bail by default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure owing to the fact that even after passage of 73 days no charge sheet is filed. The High Court rejected the bail application referring to the order of the Supreme Court wherein, it ordered that all the provisions of the limitations will be eclipsed until further notice. The said order was issued by the apex court in the wake of the nationwide lockdown due to the ongoing Covid-19. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant approached Supreme Court.
Question of Law:
Primarily, the bench was required to address the following issue:
Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of default bail as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Arguments
Appellant
Respondent
The appellant contends that the High Court committed error in taking the view that this Court’s order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period for submission of charge sheet as prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
The order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no manner can be read as extending the period for the prosecution to submit the charge sheet. The High Court had erroneously taken the view that the order of this Court eclipses the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that due to enormous difficulties in carrying out the investigation, charge sheet could not be filed in the present case and the appellant is not entitled to take benefit of Section 167(2) in precarious situation which has occurred on account of pandemic of Covid-19.
Held:
The Hon’ble Bench decided that the appellant is entitled to be granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench traced the history of Section 167 and perused the 41st Law Commission Report and reiterated that right for default bail is indefeasible right. The court observed while mentioning the precedent of Achpal Alias Ramswaroop and anr. V. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599 and Uday Mohanlal Acharya (2015) 5 SCC 453 that no court either directly or indirectly can extend the period of 60 or 90 days mentioned in Section 167(2).
The Court remarked that the order of this Court dated 23rd March enlarging the limitation period cannot be read to mean that it intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet as contemplated under Section 167(2).
The order dated 23rd March, never meant to curtail any provisions of law which was enacted to protect the personal liberty of a person. The right to prosecution to file a charge sheet even after a period of 60/90 days is not barred. The prosecution can file a charge sheet even after passage of the contemplated period but cannot detain an accused beyond the said period if the appellant filed for default bail under Section 167(2).
The three judge bench of the Supreme Court thus after the above discussion allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of Madras HC. The appellant was allowed to be released on default bail subject to personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of trial court.
Comments