In a latest case, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan
rendered an evaluation of the impact of Supreme Court’s
order dated March 23, 2020, whereby the Apex Court prolonged the
interval of limitation for all normal and particular legal guidelines¹. The intrinsic challenge
that the High Court was confronted with within the case was
whether or not the extension of interval of limitation as
pronounced by Supreme Court within the impugned order can be
relevant on investigating companies and investigating procedures
and statutory our bodies.

Brief Facts of the case

In view of issue being confronted by the attorneys and the
litigants everywhere in the nation within the wake of coronavirus outbreak,
the Apex Court of India, took suo-moto cognizance of a
writ petition² and handed an order on March 23,
2020, suspending the limitation interval operating underneath all normal
and particular legal guidelines, with impact from March 15, 2020 until additional
orders handed within the mentioned proceedings.

One of the intriguing considerations that cropped up after this order
was the applicability of this order on the precise of the Accused to
get ‘default bail’ underneath Section 167(2)
of the Cr. P.C. The Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court on May
22, 2020 had thrown mild on the applicability of the mentioned order on
investigating companies and statutory our bodies, whereas listening to a
Criminal Revision Petition within the case titled as Pankaj v
State³, in opposition to the rejection of bail of a
Juvenile Accused within the case.

Background

One FIR was lodged in opposition to two younger boys for intercepting the
sufferer when he was on his motorbike and snatching away his bag
containing Rs. 62,460 together with some necessary paperwork. Upon
investigation, the Petitioner, who was 17 years of age was
recognized and apprehended by the Police underneath Section 392 for
Robbery together with Section 34 IPC having frequent intention.

Subsequently, the Petitioner was despatched to Rehabilitation Centre
as he was a Juvenile and his bail utility earlier than the Juvenile
Justice Board in addition to his legal enchantment earlier than the Appellate
Court, had been rejected on the bottom that two extra instances of comparable
offences had been already pending in opposition to him. It was additionally contended by
the State that if he’s launched on bail, he’ll once more go within the
identical firm and is more likely to commit offences of comparable
nature.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The Petitioner inter-alia took the plea that Police has
not filed the charge-sheet thus far and subsequently, he’s entitled to
be enlarged on bail because the statutory interval of 60 days for submitting
cost sheet as offered underneath Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had expired.

Public Prosecutor’s Contentions

The Public Prosecutor positioned reliance on the order dated March
23, 2020 handed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court within the aforesaid
suo-moto writ petition, to contend that the cost sheet
couldn’t be filed as there was a nationwide lockdown, and
subsequently, the interval as prescribed underneath Section 167(2) of CrPC
stands mechanically prolonged until the time the lockdown
continues.

Benefit of Supreme Court’s March 23, 2020 order would
not be relevant to Section 167 of Code of Criminal
Procedure

The Court after listening to the contentions of each the events
noticed that on deserves, there isn’t a motive to intrude with the
discovering recorded by the Board and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
The Board and Appellate Court had been justified in concluding that if
he’s handed over to the guardian or launched on bail, he’s possible
to go in firm or in affiliation of identified criminals and the identical
would expose him to crimes of like nature.

However, the Court proceeded to take care of the argument of the
Public Prosecutor for failure to file cost sheet and automated
suspension of Section 167(2) Cr. P.C in view of order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Court opined that the legislative intent behind Section 167
of CrPC is to not present an outer time restrict inside which the
investigation is required to be accomplished, fairly it prescribes the
consequence of such failure to finish the investigation inside
the desired time.

The underlying intention or thought behind this provision, is that
an accused can’t be saved in police or judicial custody merely
underneath the guise of or pretext of pending investigation. The
provision simply places a restrict on the facility of the Magistrate to
prolong the interval of detention past a interval of 60 to 90 days as
the case could also be. The Police are free to hold out their
investigation at their very own tempo as deemed applicable.

The Court additional relied upon the order of the Madras High Court
in Settu v State⁴ and within the case of Mohd. Ali v
State of Kerala⁵ during which an identical plea was raised
earlier than the Court. The Madras High Court held that the good thing about
Supreme Court’s March 23, 2020 order wouldn’t be relevant to
Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court additionally thought of the divergent view taken by one other
single Bench of Madras High Court vide order dated May 11, 2020 in
the case titled as S. Kasi v State⁶ during which the Single
Judge after noticing the judgement in Settu’s case
took the view that in view of the lockdown, the time restrict of
finishing the investigation prescribed underneath Section 167 stands
prolonged, per order of the Apex Court.

Supreme Court’s order doesn’t prolong time interval for
investigating companies and statutory our bodies

The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court noticed that the intention
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated March 23, 2020
was to alleviate the litigants and the attorneys. The Supreme Court
vide its order prolonged the interval of limitation for submitting
petition, enchantment, revision and so forth.

There was no point out of extension of time interval for
investigating companies and statutory our bodies. In the absence of any
clear stipulation on this regard, the investigating companies can’t
declare such self-serving extension underneath the pretence or cloak of
the Apex Court’s order. Such plea if granted shall be violate of
proper of liberty of the Accused.

The Hon’ble Court additionally noticed that the Government has come
out with ordinance associated to taxation and different legal guidelines, nonetheless, no
modification has been launched within the Cr.P.C, particularly for Section
167.

The Court held that because the felony for which the Petitioner
was being tried prescribes a punishment for lower than 10 years of
imprisonment, the investigating officer was required to file a
last investigation report and charge-sheet inside 60 days of
detention. Therefore, the Petitioner was justified in asserting his
proper to be launched on bail by providing requisite bail bonds. In
view of the aforesaid observations and information and circumstances
prevailing within the case, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
allowed the Review Petition.

Footnotes

1. https://www.ssrana.in/articles/supreme-court-extends-period-of-limitation-covid/

2. Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3/2020

3. S.B. Cr. Rev. Petition no. 335/2020

4. Cr. OP(MD) No. 5291/2020 dated May 05, 2020
in Settu vs. State

5. Bail Appl. No. 2856/2020

6. Cr. OP(MD) No. 5296/2020

Originally revealed May 28, 2020

For additional info please contact at S.S Rana &
Co. e-mail: info@ssrana.in or name at (+91- 11 4012 3000).
Our web site could be accessed at
www.ssrana.in

The content material of this text is meant to offer a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation must be sought
about your particular circumstances.