S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police

Case Analysis

S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police

May 16, 2022

By – Dhruti Dewangan

In the Supreme Court of India

NAME OF THE CASE	S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police
CITATION	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.2433/2020)
DATE OF THE CASE	19 June 2020
APPELANT	S. Kasi
RESPONDENT	State through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District
BENCH/JUDGES	Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah & Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian
STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED	Constitution of India,1950; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
IMPORTANT ARTICLES/ SECTIONS	Constitution of India – Art. 21 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 167(2) & 439

ABSTRACT

In present case, the appellant’s bail request under section 439 of CrPC was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal has been brought up in connection to the Madurai Division of the Madras High Court’s decision dismissing the appellant’s bail application. Later, in the Supreme Court order dated 23.3.2020 for extending the Time period because of the COVID-19 Pandemic should only be for the interest of litigants who might be seeking legal assistance. The above Direction cannot be considered to prolong the time limit for police to file a charge sheet, as prescribed under Section 167. (2). Also, the suspected cannot be detained for more than 60 days or 90 days, depending on the facts, without submitting a Charge sheet.

INTRODUCTION

The case in hand wholly talks about guaranteeing a bail under section 439 of CrPC. Let’s us first understand what is bail? And then what is section 439 of CrPC –

Bail is a legal term that refers to the process of securing a person’s release from jail while waiting for trial or an appeal by depositing a bond to secure his timely submission to authority. The court with jurisdiction over the prisoner determines the economic value of the security, commonly known as bail more precisely, the bail bond. The security can be cash, property records or documents, or a bond from a rich investor or a professional lienholder or bonding organisation. If a person who has been released on bail fails to surrender at the prescribed time, the security is forfeited, and the people who were arrested for a crime, courts have more authority in approving or rejecting their bail. [1]

Section 439 of CrPC talks about Powers of the High Court or Session Courts in Granting Bail. It has 2 sub sections. [2]

A High Court or Court of Session may instruct, under Section 439(1) of the CrPC:

(a) That if any individual charged with a criminal offence and in custody be granted bail, and if the violation is of the nature stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may enforce any situation that it assumes necessary for the purposes discussed in that sub-section; and

(b) That if any circumstance levied by a Magistrate when releasing any individual on bail be set down or altered.

However, prior to actually giving a bail to any individual accused of committing a crime that is solely triable by the Court of Sessions or that, though not so triable, is liable to punishment by life imprisonment, the High Court or the Session Court must send a notice of the application to the prosecutor, except if it is of the viewpoint that it is not practicable to do so for factors to be registered in writing.

Whereas Section 439(2) states that – A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.[3]

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this matter of S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police, the judgment of the Madras High Court has been challenged, and an appealing has been submitted. the Madurai Bench of the said High Court’s judgement on 11.05.2020 in 2020, through which the appellant’s bail plea was rejected. The appellant is charged in Crime No.495 of 2015, under Indian Penal Code,1860.[4]

Section 457 – Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment.[5]

Section 380- Theft in dwelling house.[6]

Section 411(2) – Dishonestly receiving stolen property.[7]

Section 414(2) – Assisting in concealment of stolen property.[8]

According to the High Court’s judgement, the plaintiff was detained on February 21, 2020, and imprisoned in Trichy’s Central Prison. On April 30, 2020, the trial court denied the appellant’s Section 439 bail plea. After spending more than 73 days in judicial detention, the appellant filed a request with the High Court at Madras Bench, requesting that he be granted bail outflows over a period of time and the failure to file a charge sheet. The appellant argued before the High Court that because the charge sheet had not been submitted, he was entitled to bail by default as provided by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The High Court was referring to a Supreme Court order issued in Suo Moto on March 23, 2020. Dissatisfied with the Madras High Court’s decision, an appealing has been filed with the Supreme Court.[9]

ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

The primary and only issue in this appealing is –

Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the prosecution failed to submit a charge sheet within the statutory time frame?

ARGUMENTS FROM APPELANT SIDE

Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that –

The High Court failed in concluding that this Court’s ruling dated March 23, 2020 extended the deadline for filing a charge sheet as required by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
It is argued that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides for the defense of personal liberty, and that if the police do not file a charge sheet within the prescribed time, the applicant is entitled to default bail.
The Court’s order of 23.03.2020 cannot be interpreted as extending the time for the state to file the charge sheet. The High Court failed in believing that the order of this Court overruled the time limit set forward by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned senior counsel also contends that in the judgement brought into question, the learned Single Judge failed in taking an opposing view to an earlier judgement in Settu versus The State where the Madras High Court decided that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no way can be implemented to the terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that –

The High Court failed in concluding that this Court’s ruling dated March 23, 2020 extended the deadline for filing a charge sheet as required by Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
It is argued that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides for the defense of personal liberty, and that if the police do not file a charge sheet within the prescribed time, the applicant is entitled to default bail.
The Court’s order of 23.03.2020 cannot be interpreted as extending the time for the state to file the charge sheet. The High Court failed in believing that the order of this Court overruled the time limit set forward by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned senior counsel also contends that in the judgement brought into question, the learned Single Judge failed in taking an opposing view to an earlier judgement in Settu versus The State where the Madras High Court decided that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no way can be implemented to the terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

RELATED PROVISIONS

Constitution of India,1950 –

Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. [10]
Article 22(2) – Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.[11]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –

Section 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: [12]

Provided that—

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in 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;

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.[13]

JUDGEMENT

According to the judgement the limits set by the Government of India during the period of lockdown should not provide an accused the ability to seek detention bail even if the charge sheet has still not been submitted within the specified time by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, the Court’s ruling dated March 23, 2020 cannot be interpreted as extending the time for the defence to file the charge sheet. [14]

The High Court misunderstood in believing that the decision of this Court overturned the time limit set forth in Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgement also failed by taking the opposite view of an earlier judgement in Settu versus The State, in which a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court made a decision on 08.05.2020 that the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in no way can be applied to the provided under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In its Forty-first Report, the Law Commission of India suggested that the inquiry time limit be increased to 60 days. The Law Commission’s suggestion was put into effect by the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. Irrespective of the nature of the misconduct or the punishment, Section 167 established for a 60-day time restriction when it was enacted.

It was also determined that the purpose of adopting Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to prohibit police officers from detaining a person detained for more than 24 hours. The goal is for the accused to be brought before a Magistrate as soon as possible, within 24 hours, which is in line with the constitutional requirement established in Article 22(2) of the Constitution.

According to Bench Personal liberty is a fundamental right underlying Article 21 that should not be taken away from anyone. The accused’s request for default bail in the abovementioned instance was granted. The prosecution’s argument that the timeframe for filing charge sheets under Section 167 Cr.P.C. has been extended by an order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 was expressly denied.[15]

Thus, the bail was granted and it was held that delay in submitting charge sheet due to Covid-19 Pandemic is not an excuse. [16]

CONCLUSION

The Court decided that its suo motu order increasing the limitation period and the country’s lockdown restrictions will not impact an accused’s rights to obtain defaulted bail within Section 167(2) of the CrPC. In my opinion it is good thought as the infringement of basic rights is not good. Whilst allowing default bail to the convicted, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision that the lockdown limitations should not enable an accused the ability to seek default bail although the charge sheet had not been submitted within the time limit set out in Section 167(2) of the CrPC.

I think in virtual manner all the proceedings are being conducted, also the process is going on from respective offices or in work from home manner. So the delay in filing charge sheet is due to Covid-19 pandemic or due to lockdown is not an excuse to infringe rights of any person whether arrested or layman.

[1] https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/6-Bail%20Anticipatory%20Bails%20-%20Sri%20M%20Sreenu.pdf.

[2] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf

[3] See The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 439 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf.

[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34889280/.

[5] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 457 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.

[6] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 380 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.

[7] See The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 411 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.

[8] See the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 414 https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.

[9] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11405/11405_2020_35_1501_22666_Judgement_19-Jun-2020.pdf.

[10] See The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21, https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/coi-4March2016.pdf

[11] See The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 22(2), https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/coi-4March2016.pdf

[12] See the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2), https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf

[13] See the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2), https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf

[14] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11405/11405_2020_35_1501_22666_Judgement_19-Jun-2020.pdf

[15] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/34889280/ .

[16] https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11405/11405_2020_35_1501_22666_Judgement_19-Jun-2020.pdf.

Case Analysis