The first of April: The Supreme Court has stated that, despite the fact that the state is tasked with preventing crime and maintaining security, personal liberty should not be sacrificed, and no one should be imprisoned without permission from the law.
The Supreme Court made the observation while it was deciding whether to include or exclude the date of remand when calculating the 60/90-day period outlined in proviso (a) of Section 167 (2) of the CrPC for the purpose of considering a claim for default bail.
If the investigating agency does not submit a charge sheet within sixty days of the date of remand, the accused will be entitled to default bail, according to section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The stipulated time period may be extended to 90 days for a specific category of offenses.
The 60/90-day remand period stipulated by Section 167 CrPC should be calculated from the date a magistrate authorizes remand, according to a three-judge bench headed by Justice K M Joseph.
This court is aware that no one should be incarcerated without permission from the law. The bench, which also included Justices Hrishikesh Roy and B V Nagarathna, stated, “Personal liberty should not be the collateral of the State’s responsibility to prevent crime and maintain security.”
The highest court stated that the State must strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the restriction on those rights and prevent prolonged incarceration without legal support if it fails to file a charge sheet or additional request for remand within the stipulated 60 or 90 days.
The accused acquires an unassailable right to default bail as soon as the statutory remand period ends, and this right must be protected. Individual liberty is unquestionably relative and regulated. Absolute liberty cannot be imagined within a societal context.
As a result, the law grants authorities permission to detain suspects and facilitate investigations. However, this court is obligated to discourage lengthy incarceration. Additionally, “the accused continues to have the right to default bail, and the right to default bail is not extinguished by the subsequent filing of the charge sheet,” the bench stated.
The lawful inquiry has emerged while hearing a request recorded by the Implementation Directorate against the request for the Bombay High Court giving default bail to previous DHFL advertisers Kapil Wadhawan and Dheeraj Wadhawan in a Yes Bank tax evasion case being examined by the office. ( PTI)
HARDIK SHARMA BCOM L.L.B 8TH SEM
0 Comments