S. KASI versus STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAMAYNALLUR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 19-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
S. KASI
v.
STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SAMAYNALLUR POLICE STATION MADURAI DISTRICT
(Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2020)
JUNE 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Entitlement
to bail in event charge sheet not filed by the police within the
stipulated period – The appellant-accused was arrested on
21.02.2020 u/ss. 457, 380, 457(2), 380(2), 411(2) and 414(2) IPC
– After being in judicial custody for more than 73 days and non-
filing of charge-sheet – The appellant filed for bail by default as
contemplated u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. before the High Court – The High
Court referring to an order of the Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020
passed in Suo Moto W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 took the view that the
Supreme Court’s Order extended the period for submission of
charge-sheet prescribed u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – On appeal, held: The
Order dated 23.03.2020 was passed to protect the litigants/ lawyers
whose petitions/ application/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings
would become time barred they being not able to physically come
to file such proceedings considering the challenge faced by the
Country on account of Covid-19 Virus – When the Supreme Court
passed the order for extending 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 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 u/s 167(2) of the Cr. P.C.
– Therefore, even during the lockdown the investigating officer was
not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within
the stipulated period before the Magistrate (incharge) – Thus, the
High Court committed error in extending the restriction to filing
of charge-sheet by investigating officer in the Order dated
23.03.2020.
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 277
277
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
Constitution of India – Proclamation of Emergency and Art.
21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – The Single
Judge of the High Court held that lockdown announced by the
Government of India is akin to the proclamation of Emergency and
the restrictions imposed should not give accuse a right to pray for
grant of default bail u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – Held: The Seven Judges
Constitution Bench Judgment in K.S. Puthaswamy and Another v.
Union of India and Others held that life and personal liberty are
inalienable to human existence – They constitute rights under
Natural Law – The human element in the life of an individual is
integrally founded on the sanctity of life – In the instant case, the
Single Judge of the High Court erred in holding that the lockdown
announced by the Government is akin to the proclamation of
Emergency and the restrictions imposed during the lockdown 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 u/s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. – The views of the Single Judge of
the High Court were not in accordance with law – Accordingly, the
judgment of the Single Judge set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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 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 cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.