Case Title: S.KASI V. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
The Supreme Court ruled that the government's lockdown restrictions and its suo moto decision extending the statute of limitations would not impair an accused person's ability to apply for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As a result, the Madras High Court's single-judge decision in S Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police, which held that the Supreme Court order extending the limitation period and the lockdown restrictions would also extend the time to file a charge sheet under Section 167(2) CrPC, was overturned by a bench made up of Justices Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah, and V Ramasubramanian.
The bench declared that this was an "obviously erroneous interpretation," adding:
"The view of the learned Single Judge that the restrictions, which have been imposed during the period of lockdown by the Government of India should not give the 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 erroneous and not by the law."
The Apex Court ruled that the High Court's justification for the lockdown being comparable to declaring an emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution was incorrect. The court stated that even in the absence of an emergency, the basic right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be suspended. As a result, the accused person's rights cannot be violated.
Suo Moto order can't be used to prolong the time frame under Section 167 (2) -
According to the Court, Section 167(2) of the CrPC's limitation period cannot be extended by a suo moto order that extends the limitation period.
"The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge)", the Court said.
Police may have more discretion -
The Court showed its concern that if the single bench's opinion of the High Court were to be adopted, police may start abusing their authority when it came to releasing suspects after arrest.
According to the Court, the challenged judgment's point of view "sends erroneous signals to the State and the prosecution emboldening them to act in violation of a person's liberty."
Extension of limitation not intended to undermine CrPC provisions -
The court stated that its order of 23.03.2020 was never intended to limit any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law that was designed to safeguard an individual's personal liberty. The prosecution can file a charge sheet even after 60 or 90 days have passed. The prosecution can file a charge sheet beyond 60 or 90 days, but without doing so, they cannot continue to hold an accused person in custody over the allotted time if the accused asks the court to release him because the charge sheet was not filed on time. The prosecution's right to continue its investigation and file a charge sheet is distinct from the individual's right to liberty protected by Article 21 and other laws, such as Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The top court further noted that the single judge had "breached judicial discipline" with its decision since it was in direct conflict with the decision of another single bench, which had ruled that the order extending the restriction had no bearing on the right to default bail. The supreme court said that the criticisms of the prior decision made by the single bench were "uncharitable."
The Supreme Court issued a suo moto direction extending the deadline for submitting complaints in courts and tribunals because of the epidemic.
Justice G R Swaminathan had construed the Supreme Court's ruling as merely applying to the limitation period for filing lawsuits under the Limitation Act, 1963 in an order issued in "Settu v. The State."
He noted that the decision made no mention of a particular extension of time for concluding the Section 167 inquiry. Therefore, it was decided that the accused is eligible for default bail after the required time of 60 or 90 days as specified by the clause ends.
Justice G. Jayachandran, on the other hand, said that holding that the Supreme Court ruling is not relevant to the time frame for filing the final report amounts to "mocking" the Apex Court in S. Kasi v. State through The Inspector of Police.
In light of the unique circumstances surrounding Covid-19, he decided to extend the statute of limitations for investigations under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.