Whether the appellant due to non submission of charge sheet within the prescribed period by the prosecution was entitled for grant of bail as per section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Courtby which judgment the bail application of the appellant has been dismissed.
1. The appellant is an accused in Crime No.495 of 2015 under Sections 457, 380, 457(2), 380(2), 411(2) and 414(2) of Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arrested on 21.02.2020 in the above case 2 and lodged in Central Prison, Trichy.
2. The bail application of the appellant under Section 439 was rejected by the trial court on 30.04.2020. After being in judicial custody for more than 73 days, the appellant filed an application Crl.OP(MD)No.5296 of 2020 before the High Court of Judicature of Madras at Madurai Bench praying for grant of bail on account of passage of such 73 days and non-filing of charge sheet.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court – this appeal has been filed.
457 – Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine
380 – Theft in dwelling house, etc.—Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
411 (2) – Dishonestly receiving stolen property.—Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
414 (2) - Assisting in concealment of stolen property.—Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
1. High Court committed error in taking the view that this Court’s order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period for submission of charge sheet as prescribed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.The order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no manner can be read as extending the period for the prosecution to submit the charge sheet.
2. The High Court had erroneously 4 taken the view that the order of this Court eclipses the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.the impugned judgment had also erred in taking a contrary view to an earlier judgment delivered by another learned Single Judge in Settu versus The State, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5291 of 2020 where the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court decided on 08.05.2020 has taken the view that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no manner can be applied on the provisions of Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The Law Commission of India in its Forty-first Report recommended for increasing the time limit for completion of investigation to 60 days. The new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gave effect to the recommendation of the Law Commission. Section 167 as enacted provided for time limit of 60 days regardless of the nature of offence or the punishment.
4. the object of enacting the provisions of Section 167 Cr.P.C. Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains the embargo on the Police Officers to detain in custody a person arrested beyond 24 hours. The object is that the accused should be brought before a Magistrate without delay within 24 hours, which provision is, in fact, in consonance with the constitutional mandate engrafted under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
A Bench sitting in a Largercoram may be right in overturning a judgment on a question of law, which jurisdiction a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench does not have. In any case, a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench or a Larger Bench has no business to make any adverse comment 34 or uncharitable remark on any other judgment. Judges strongly disapproved the course adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.A Bench whether coordinate or Larger, has to refrain from making any uncharitable observation on a decision even though delivered by a Bench of a lesser coram.
To download the original copy of the judgment, Click here