Supreme Court Clarifies Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC During Lockdown: S. Kasi vs. State (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the time limit for filing a charge sheet under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) gets extended due to the Supreme Court’s order on extending limitation during the COVID-19 lockdown.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: S.Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District
Judgment Date: 19 June 2020

Date of the Judgment: 19 June 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 473

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M.R. Shah, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can the COVID-19 lockdown and the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation periods be used to deny an accused person their right to default bail if the police fail to file a charge sheet within the statutory time limit? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of S.Kasi vs. State, clarifying the scope and applicability of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during the pandemic. This judgment emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and the strict timelines for filing charge sheets. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, M.R. Shah, and V. Ramasubramanian, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, S.Kasi, was arrested on 21 February 2020, in connection with a case registered under Sections 457, 380, 457(2), 380(2), 411(2), and 414(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After being in judicial custody for more than 73 days, and with no charge sheet filed, he sought bail from the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, citing his right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The High Court rejected his plea, stating that the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, which extended limitation periods due to the pandemic, also extended the time for filing charge sheets.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s bail application was initially rejected by the trial court on 30 April 2020. Subsequently, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, seeking bail on the grounds that the charge sheet had not been filed within the statutory period as per Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The High Court, however, dismissed the application, interpreting the Supreme Court’s order of 23 March 2020, as extending the time for filing charge sheets as well. This interpretation led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section deals with the procedure when an investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. Specifically, Section 167(2) states:

“167.(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;]”

This provision essentially grants an accused person the right to be released on bail if the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature of the offense.

The Supreme Court’s order of 23 March 2020, passed in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, extended the period of limitation for filing petitions, applications, suits, appeals, and all other proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The order stated:

“…it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.”

The High Court had interpreted this order to mean that the time period for filing a charge sheet under Section 167(2) CrPC was also extended.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a provision for the protection of personal liberty. If the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated period, the accused is entitled to default bail.
• The appellant contended that the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020 was intended to extend limitation for court proceedings and not to extend the period for the prosecution to submit the charge sheet.
• The appellant highlighted that a coordinate bench of the same High Court in Settu vs. The State, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5291 of 2020, had already held that the Supreme Court’s order does not apply to Section 167(2) of CrPC.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that due to the difficulties in carrying out investigations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the charge sheet could not be filed within the prescribed time.
• The State contended that the appellant should not be granted default bail due to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the pandemic.
• The State supported the High Court’s view that the Supreme Court’s order of 23 March 2020, extended the time for filing the charge sheet.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting that the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation was meant for litigants and lawyers, not to hinder the rights of the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant, due to non-submission of the charge sheet within the prescribed period by the prosecution, was entitled to the grant of bail as per Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

“The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to arrive at its decision. These authorities were categorized by the legal point they addressed:

On the Object and Purpose of Section 167 CrPC:

• Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453: This case highlighted that Section 167 CrPC is supplementary to Section 57, ensuring that the accused is brought before a Magistrate without delay. It also emphasized that the right to default bail is a beneficial provision to prevent indefinite prolongation of investigation.
• Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67: This case reiterated that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right, which cannot be frustrated by the prosecution.
• Achpal Alias Ramswaroop and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599: This case clarified that no court has the power to extend the time limit for completing an investigation under Section 167 CrPC.

On the Interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Order Dated 23.03.2020:

• The Court clarified that the order was intended to extend the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals and other court proceedings, not to extend the time for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2) CrPC.

On the Right to Personal Liberty and Emergency Provisions:

• Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521: This case (overruled) discussed the suspension of Article 21 rights during an emergency, but the court noted that this position has been remedied by subsequent constitutional amendments.
• Union of India and others v. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde and others, (1977) 1 SCC 834: This case (overruled) followed the majority view in ADM Jabalpur regarding the suspension of fundamental rights during an emergency.
• K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1: This case overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision, affirming the inalienable nature of the right to life and personal liberty.

On Judicial Discipline:

• State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 26: This case emphasized that a coordinate bench should follow the decision of an earlier coordinate bench and, if disagreeing, should refer the matter to a larger bench.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453*: The Court relied on this judgment to underscore the purpose of Section 167 CrPC and the importance of default bail in protecting personal liberty.
• Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67*: The Court used this judgment to reinforce that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right.
• Achpal Alias Ramswaroop and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 14 SCC 599*: The Court cited this case to establish that no court has the power to extend the time for completing an investigation under Section 167 CrPC.
• Order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020*: The Court clarified that this order was not meant to extend the time for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2) CrPC.
• Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521*: The Court noted that this judgment, which discussed the suspension of Article 21 rights during an emergency, was overruled.
• Union of India and others v. Bhanudas Krishna Gawde and others, (1977) 1 SCC 834*: The Court noted that this judgment, which followed the majority view in ADM Jabalpur, was also overruled.
• K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1*: The Court relied on this judgment to highlight the inalienable nature of the right to life and personal liberty, and that ADM Jabalpur stands overruled.
• State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 26*: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of judicial discipline and that a coordinate bench should not take a contrary view.
• Settu versus The State, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5291 of 2020*: The Court approved the view taken by the Madras High Court in this case that the Supreme Court’s order does not extend the time for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2) CrPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the personal liberty of individuals, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is an indefeasible right, which cannot be curtailed even during a pandemic. The Court was also concerned about maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that lower courts do not take a contrary view to the settled legal positions.

The Court’s reasoning was based more on legal principles and interpretation of the law rather than on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the Supreme Court’s order of 23 March 2020, extended the time for filing charge sheets but rejected it. The Court reasoned that the order was meant to protect litigants and lawyers from the difficulties of filing court proceedings during the lockdown, not to extend the time for police investigation. The Court also rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic justified denying default bail, emphasizing that the right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed even during a pandemic.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that:

“The right of an accused to be released on bail after expiry of the maximum period of detention provided under Section 167 can be denied only when an accused does not furnish bail…”

The Court also noted that:

“The order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 never meant to curtail any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute which was enacted to protect the Personal Liberty of a person.”

The Court further stated that:

“The right of prosecution to carry on investigation and submit a charge sheet is not akin to right of liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 and reflected in other statutes including Section 167, Cr.P.C.”

There was no minority opinion in this case, as all three judges on the bench agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the order of 23 March 2020, extending limitation periods, does not apply to the time limit for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2) of the CrPC.
• The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is an indefeasible right and cannot be curtailed due to the COVID-19 pandemic or any other extraordinary circumstances.
• The judgment reaffirms the importance of personal liberty and the strict timelines for filing charge sheets in criminal cases.
• Lower courts must adhere to judicial discipline and follow the decisions of coordinate benches.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on default bail, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court’s order dated 23 March 2020, extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic, does not extend the time limit for filing charge sheets under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. This judgment clarifies that the right to default bail is an indefeasible right and cannot be curtailed due to the pandemic. This ruling reinforces the importance of personal liberty and strict adherence to the timelines specified in Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.Kasi vs. State clarifies that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC remains unaffected by the Supreme Court’s order on extending limitation periods during the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty is paramount and that the time limit for filing charge sheets cannot be extended under the guise of the pandemic. This ruling ensures that the procedural safeguards for the accused are upheld, even in extraordinary circumstances.