Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (6) TMI SC This
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.
|