COVID-19 Lockout Not Like Emergency Proclamation, Supreme Court Says
New Delhi:
Lockdown announced by government due to COVID-19 is not akin to emergency proclamation, Supreme Court said default bail is irrevocable right on non-submission of indictment within the prescribed time.
The superior court made this observation while setting aside an order of the Madras High Court refusing to release bail to an accused despite the failure to file the indictment within the time limit.
A bench led by judge Ashok Bhushan said that, according to the High Court, the restrictions imposed during the foreclosure should not entitle the accused to default bail even if the indictment has not been filed within the time limit prescribed in subsection 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is “manifestly erroneous and not in accordance with the law”.
Annulling its judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case during the emergency as “retrograde”, the supreme court declared that the right to life and liberty cannot be withdrawn without due legal process.
In the 1976 ADM Jabalpur case, the formation of five judges, by a 4: 1 majority verdict, came to the conclusion that article 21 is the sole depositary of all rights to life and personal liberty and , once suspended, removes these rights. absolutely.
The judiciary, headed by Judge Ashok Bhushan, said that the “backward steps taken in the area of protected article 21 rights” in ADM Jabalpur had been corrected by Parliament through a constitutional amendment.
He stated that any restriction on an accused’s rights protected by subsection 167 (2) regarding his unassailable right to obtain default bail on the failure to file the indictment within the prescribed time, which cannot be thwarted by the prosecution.
“We therefore clearly consider that the sole judge (of the HC) in the judgment under appeal erred in finding that the foreclosure announced by the
The government of India is akin to an emergency proclamation.
<< The opinion of the single judge that the restrictions imposed during the lockout period by the Indian government should not give the accused the right to pray for bail by default even if the act The charge was not filed within the time limit under section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure "is clearly wrong and not in accordance with the law," said the district court.
The bench, also including Judges MR Shah and V Ramasubramanian, bailed the accused on presentation of a personal bond of 10,000 rupees with two sureties and clarified that his March order on the extension of the limitation does not apply to the provisions of the CrPC.
The order of March 23, 2020 (on limitation) cannot be read as meaning that it never intended to extend the period for filing the police indictment, as provided for in the Article 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, said the bench.
“The investigating officer could have submitted / filed the accusation file before the magistrate (accused). Therefore, even during the foreclosure and as has been the case in many cases, the indictment could have been filed / brought before the magistrate (charged) and the officer responsible for it was not prohibited ‘investigation to file / submit the indictment even within the time limit before the magistrate (indictment) “, said the bench.
(With the exception of the title, this story was not edited by GalacticGaming staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
