Supreme Court: Extension of Lockdown Will Not Affect Right to Default Bail

Must Read

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Follow us

A bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, M R Shah and V Ramasubramaniam presided over the matter. They set aside the judgement passed by the Madras HC in the case S. Kasi vs State through Inspector of Police. The Court clarified the enactment of S.167 CrPC, in the present case.

Brief Facts of the Case

Every individual has a right to personal liberty. If liberty gets curtailed due to the justice system, he is entitled to demand that justice. In the present case, the petitioner was charged under S. 457, 380, 457(2), 380(2), 411(2) and 414(2) of Indian Penal Code. He got arrested on 21.02.2020 in the above case and lodged in Central Prison, Trichy. The bail application of the appellant under Section 439 got rejected by the trial court on 30.04.2020. After being in judicial custody for more than 73 days, the appellant applied for the HC of Madras. He prayed for grant of bail on account of the passage of such 73 days and non-filing of the charge sheet. The appellant contended that he was entitled to bail by default as prescribed under S.167 (2).

The Single Bench Judge of the Madras HC referred to a Suo Moto Writ Petition of 23.03.2020 passed by the Supreme Court. Further, the Judge granted an extension to the authorities to file the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the decision of the Court, the appellant has approached this Court.

Arguments before the Court

Learned Senior Counsel Shri Siddharth Luthra appeared on behalf of the appellant. He contended that the High Court committed error in taking the view that this Court’s order dated 23.03.2020. He further stated that the provisions u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. are provisions for the protection of personal liberty. In the event of charge sheet not getting filed by the Police within the stipulated period, the appellant gets entitled to default bail.

He contended that learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment had also erred in taking a contrary view to an earlier judgment delivered by another learned Single Judge in Settu v. The State.

Shri Jayanth Muthuraj learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted those enormous difficulties arose while carrying out the investigation. Moreover, the charge sheet could not be filed in the present case. He states that the appellant is not entitled to take benefit of Section 167(2) in the wake of the Covid-19.

Court’s Observation

The Court considered the purpose of enactment of section 167(2) before giving any decision. After tracing the legislative history of S.167, the Court observed that:

1) S. 167(2) is in consonance with the constitutional mandate engrafted under A. 22(2) of the Constitution.

2) S. 167 is supplementary to Section 57, in consonance with the principle that the accused is entitled to demand that justice is not delayed.

3) S. 167 should get looked from the angle of personal liberty.

4) Without submission of charge sheet within 60 or 90 days, as may be applicable, an accused cannot be detained by the Police.

Further, the Court has observed that the order passed by the HC was to protect the lawyers who seek the remedy. But “The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right”, the Court said.

“The right of the prosecution to carry on investigation and submit a charge sheet is not akin to the right of liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 and reflected in other statutes including Section 167, Cr.P.C.”

Thus, the Court observed that the State had no right to deprive a person of his life or liberty without the authority of law.

Moreover, the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment had not only breached the judicial discipline but has also referred to an observation made by learned Single Judge in Settu v. The State as uncharitable.

Court’s Order

The Court is in view that this Court, in its order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2). Also, the restrictions which got imposed during the lockdown, announced by the Govt. must not operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2). That is about his indefeasible Right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

The Court set aside the High Court judgement and granted bail. Also demanded the appellant to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -