9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 727 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of Bail - non-submission of charge sheet within the prescribed period by the prosecution - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The Law Commission of India in its Forty-first Report recommended for increasing the time limit for completion of investigation to 60 days. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gave effect to the recommendation of the Law Commission. Section 167 as enacted provided for time limit of 60 days regardless of the nature of offence or the punishment. In the year 1978, Section 167 was amended. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2001 (3) TMI 1032 - SUPREME COURT , has noticed the object of enacting the provisions of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains the embargo on the Police Officers to detain in custody a person arrested beyond 24 hours. The object is that the Accused should be brought before a Magistrate without delay within 24 hours, which provision is, in fact, in consonance with the constitutional mandate engrafted Under Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The provision of Section 167 is supplementary to Section 57. The power Under Section 167 is given to detain a person in custody while police goes on with the investigation. Section 167 is, therefore, a provision which authorises the Magistrate permitting the detention of the Accused in custody prescribing the maximum period. The scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure clearly delineates that provisions of Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure gives due regard to the personal liberty of a person. Without submission of charge sheet within 60 days or 90 days as may be applicable, an Accused cannot be detained by the Police. The provision gives due recognition to the personal liberty. 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 learned 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 learned 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. Neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed Under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 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 non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. The learned Single Judge committed serious error in reading such restriction in the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 - Prayer of the Accused in the said case for grant of default bail was allowed. The claim of the prosecution that by order of this Court dated 23.03.2020, the period for filing charge sheet Under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure stands extended was specifically rejected. It is directed that Appellant be released on default bail subject to personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of trial court - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to non-filing of charge sheet within the prescribed period. 2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 regarding the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19. 3. Judicial discipline and the binding nature of coordinate Bench decisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Default Bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The appellant was arrested under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and was in judicial custody for more than 73 days without a charge sheet being filed. The appellant argued for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates release on bail if the investigation is not completed within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense. This provision aims to protect personal liberty by preventing indefinite detention without trial. 2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court's Order Dated 23.03.2020: The High Court denied bail, citing the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation for filing petitions and other legal proceedings due to COVID-19. The High Court interpreted this order as extending the time for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2). However, the Supreme Court clarified that the order aimed to protect litigants and lawyers from being time-barred due to the pandemic and did not intend to extend the period for filing charge sheets by the police. The Court emphasized that the Investigating Officer could still submit the charge sheet to the Magistrate during the lockdown. 3. Judicial Discipline and the Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions: The Supreme Court noted that a coordinate Bench of the Madras High Court in Settu v. The State had already ruled that the Supreme Court's order dated 23.03.2020 did not extend the period for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2). The High Court's decision in the present case, which took a contrary view, was deemed erroneous and a breach of judicial discipline. A coordinate Bench should follow the decisions of another coordinate Bench or refer the matter to a larger Bench if there is a disagreement. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to default bail due to the non-filing of the charge sheet within the prescribed period. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the appellant's release on bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the proper interpretation of judicial orders. The decision also underscored the need for judicial discipline and respect for the decisions of coordinate Benches.
|
