OVERVIEW
The present case majorly deals with the guarantee of bail under section 439 of CrPc. The appellant’s request for bail under section 439 of CrPC was rejected by the trial court. The appeal was filed in relation to the dismissal of the appellant’s bail application by the Madurai Division of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.3.2020, extended the time period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but only for the benefit of litigants seeking legal assistance. This extension should not be construed as prolonging the time limit for the police to file a charge sheet as per Section 167. Moreover, the suspect cannot be detained beyond 60 or 90 days, depending on the facts, without the submission of a charge sheet.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Bail and Section 439 of CrPc needs to understood in order to fully grasp the facts of this case.
- By posting a bond as surety for their prompt attendance in court, a person can be freed from custody while they wait for a trial or an appeal according to the legal notion of bail. The court with jurisdiction over the prisoner determines the amount of the security, often known as bail or a bail bond. Cash, real estate, records, papers, or a bond from a well-to-do investor or reputable bonding company can all be used as security. The security is lost if the individual doesn’t appear in court at the appointed time. Bail can be approved or denied by the court for those who have been detained on suspicion of a crime.
- Section 439 mentions about the powers of High courts or Session courts in granting bail and it contains 2 subsections:
- A High Court or Court of Session may issue instructions under Section 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the following circumstances: (a) If a person accused of a crime who is in custody is granted bail and the crime fits the criteria listed in Subsection (3) of Section 437, the court may impose any conditions it deems necessary for the purposes specified in that Subsection; and (b) If any conditions imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an individual on bail are modified or set aside.
- However, unless it is deemed impracticable for reasons to be recorded in writing, the High Court or the Session Court must send notice of the bail application to the prosecutor before granting bail to a person accused of committing a crime that is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or punishable by life imprisonment.
- A High Court or Court of Session, on the other hand, has the authority to order the arrest and custody of any individual who has been released on bail under this Chapter, according to Section 439(2).
FACTS
The Madras High Court’s judgment in the case of S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police has been challenged through an appeal submitted to the Madurai Bench of the High Court. The appellant is facing charges under Sections 457, 380, 411(2), and 414(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which relate to offenses such as lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night with the intention to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment, theft in a dwelling house, dishonestly receiving stolen property, and assisting in the concealment of stolen property. The appellant’s bail plea was rejected in a judgment dated 11.05.2020 in the year 2020 by the Madurai Bench of the High Court.
As per the judgment of the High Court, the plaintiff was arrested and detained on February 21, 2020, and subsequently imprisoned in Trichy’s Central Prison. On April 30, 2020, the trial court rejected the appellant’s bail plea under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After spending more than 73 days in judicial detention, the appellant filed a request with the Madras Bench of the High Court, seeking bail on the grounds of delay in filing the charge sheet and the applicability of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant referred to a Supreme Court order issued suo moto on March 23, 2020. However, dissatisfied with the decision of the Madras High Court, an appeal has been filed with the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUE
Was the appellant eligible for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the prosecution’s failure to file a charge sheet within the prescribed timeframe?
CONTENTION TO THE PARTIES
APPELLANT
- One of the arguments made by the appellant before the High Court was that since no charge sheet had been submitted, he was entitled to bail by default as provided for in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The appellant argues that the High Court erred in concluding that the 23.03.2020 ruling of this Court extended the deadline for filing a charge sheet as required by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. According to the argument, Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contains safeguards for the protection of individual rights, and the appellant is eligible for default bail if the police do not file a charge sheet within the allotted time frame. In no way could the court’s ruling from 23 March 2020 be interpreted as extending the deadline for the prosecution to file its charge sheet. The High Court had incorrectly 4 believed that the time allotted under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is exceeded by this Court’s ruling.
- In the perilous position brought on by the Covid-19 epidemic, the appellant is not entitled to use Section 167(2).
RESPONDENT
- Asserts that the appellant is unable to invoke Section 167(2) owing to the perilous situation that has arisen as a result of the Covid-19 epidemic since there were great problems in conducting the inquiry.
JUDGEMENT
Even though the charge sheet has not been filed within the time frame stipulated by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judgement maintains that the restrictions imposed by the Government of India during the lockdown period do not give an accused the right to request bail for imprisonment. The deadline for the prosecution to file the charge sheet should not be construed as having been extended by the Court’s ruling from March 23, 2020.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was erroneously interpreted by the High Court as nullifying the deadline set out in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgement also erred by departing from an earlier decision in the case of Settu versus the State, where a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court ruled on 08.05.2020 that the provisions under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be applied in light of the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.03.2020.
The new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 adopted the Law Commission of India’s recommendation to increase the period allotted for an inquiry to 60 days in its forty-first report. In accordance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(2) of the Constitution, Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted to prohibit police officers from detaining a person for longer than 24 hours and to ensure that the accused is brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours. According to the Bench, personal liberty is regarded as a basic right under Article 21 and should not be taken away from anybody. In the aforementioned instance, the prosecution’s claim that a court judgement dated 23.03.2020 had extended the deadline for submitting charge sheets under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected in favour of the accused’s motion for default bail. The court ruled that the Covid-19 pandemic’s effect on the delay in delivering the charge sheet could not be cited as justification.
CONCLUSION
The protection of people’s fundamental rights is a wise decision. The Covid-19 pandemic’s effect on the delay in filing the charge sheet or the lockdown cannot be used as justification for violating the rights of anybody, whether they are arrested or not, due to the virtual procedures and work-from-home arrangements. The Court ruled that the accused’s ability to secure default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should not be impacted by its suo motu ruling extending the deadline and the country’s lockdown limitations. The Court reversed the High Court’s ruling that the lockdown limitations should apply even if the charge sheet hasn’t been filed within the window of time allowed by Section 167(2) of the CrPC, preventing the accused from requesting default bail.
Written by: Varsha Goud of Rajiv Gandhi National Law University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments