In a recent case, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan
rendered an analysis of the effect of Supreme Court’s
order dated March 23, 2020, wherein the Apex Court extended the
period of limitation for all general and special laws¹. The intrinsic issue
that the High Court was confronted with in the case was
whether the extension of period of limitation as
pronounced by Supreme Court in the impugned order would be
applicable on investigating agencies and investigating procedures
and statutory bodies.

Brief Facts of the case

In view of difficulty being faced by the lawyers and the
litigants all over the country in the wake of coronavirus outbreak,
the Apex Court of India, took suo-moto cognizance of a
writ petition² and passed an order on March 23,
2020, suspending the limitation period running under all general
and special laws, with effect from March 15, 2020 till further
orders passed in the said proceedings.

One of the intriguing concerns that cropped up after this order
was the applicability of this order on the right of the Accused to
get ‘default bail’ under Section 167(2)
of the Cr. P.C. The Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court on May
22, 2020 had thrown light on the applicability of the said order on
investigating agencies and statutory bodies, while hearing a
Criminal Revision Petition in the case titled as Pankaj v
State³, against the rejection of bail of a
Juvenile Accused in the case.

Background

One FIR was lodged against two young boys for intercepting the
victim when he was on his motorcycle and snatching away his bag
containing Rs. 62,460 along with some important documents. Upon
investigation, the Petitioner, who was 17 years of age was
identified and apprehended by the Police under Section 392 for
Robbery along with Section 34 IPC having common intention.

Subsequently, the Petitioner was sent to Rehabilitation Centre
as he was a Juvenile and his bail application before the Juvenile
Justice Board as well as his criminal appeal before the Appellate
Court, were rejected on the ground that two more cases of similar
offences were already pending against him. It was also contended by
the State that if he is released on bail, he will again go in the
same company and is likely to commit offences of similar
nature.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The Petitioner inter-alia took the plea that Police has
not filed the charge-sheet so far and therefore, he is entitled to
be enlarged on bail as the statutory period of 60 days for filing
charge sheet as provided under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had expired.

Public Prosecutor’s Contentions

The Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the order dated March
23, 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
suo-moto writ petition, to contend that the charge sheet
could not be filed as there was a nationwide lockdown, and
therefore, the period as prescribed under Section 167(2) of CrPC
stands automatically extended till the time the lockdown
continues.

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

The Court after hearing the contentions of both the parties
observed that on merits, there is no reason to interfere with the
finding recorded by the Board and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
The Board and Appellate Court were justified in concluding that if
he is handed over to the guardian or released on bail, he is likely
to go in company or in association of known criminals and the same
would expose him to crimes of like nature.

However, the Court proceeded to deal with the argument of the
Public Prosecutor for failure to file charge sheet and automatic
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 not to provide an outer time limit within which the
investigation is required to be completed, rather it prescribes the
consequence of such failure to complete the investigation within
the specified time.

The underlying intention or idea behind this provision, is that
an accused cannot be kept in police or judicial custody merely
under the guise of or pretext of pending investigation. The
provision just puts a limit on the power of the Magistrate to
extend the period of detention beyond a period of 60 to 90 days as
the case may be. The Police are free to carry out their
investigation at their own pace as deemed appropriate.

The Court further relied upon the order of the Madras High Court
in Settu v State⁴ and in the case of Mohd. Ali v
State of Kerala⁵ in which a similar plea was raised
before the Court. The Madras High Court held that the benefit of
Supreme Court’s March 23, 2020 order would not be applicable to
Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court also considered the divergent view taken by another
single Bench of Madras High Court vide order dated May 11, 2020 in
the case titled as S. Kasi v State⁶ in which the Single
Judge after noticing the judgement in Settu’s case
took the view that in view of the lockdown, the time limit of
completing the investigation prescribed under Section 167 stands
extended, per order of the Apex Court.

Supreme Court’s order does not extend time period for
investigating agencies and statutory bodies

The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that the intention
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated March 23, 2020
was to relieve the litigants and the lawyers. The Supreme Court
vide its order extended the period of limitation for filing
petition, appeal, revision etc.

There was no mention of extension of time period for
investigating agencies and statutory bodies. In the absence of any
clear stipulation in this regard, the investigating agencies cannot
claim such self-serving extension under the pretence or cloak of
the Apex Court’s order. Such plea if granted will be violate of
right of liberty of the Accused.

The Hon’ble Court also observed that the Government has come
out with ordinance related to taxation and other laws, however, no
amendment has been introduced in the Cr.P.C, especially for Section
167.

The Court held that as the felony for which the Petitioner
was being tried prescribes a punishment for less than 10 years of
imprisonment, the investigating officer was required to file a
final investigation report and charge-sheet within 60 days of
detention. Therefore, the Petitioner was justified in asserting his
right to be released on bail by offering requisite bail bonds. In
view of the aforesaid observations and facts and circumstances
prevailing in 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 published May 28, 2020

For further information please contact at S.S Rana &
Co. email: info@ssrana.in or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000).
Our website can be accessed at
www.ssrana.in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.