STOCK MARKET BSE NSE

Don’t hide behind judicial orders passed during lockdown, Madras HC tells cops

The judge opined that denial of default bail to the petitioner will not only go against the said intention but also amount to violation of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21. 

Published: 10th May 2020 07:15 PM  |   Last Updated: 10th May 2020 07:15 PM   |  A+A-

Madras HC

Madras High Court building. (Photo | EPS)

By Express News Service

MADURAI: Observing that the Supreme Court’s order extending the limitation period for filing cases during lockdown cannot be taken as a ground to deny default bail to a person, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ordered the release of a man accused in a robbery case in Thanjavur on default bail.

Justice G R Swaminathan noted that according to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate cannot authorise the detention of an accused if the police fail to file a final report against the accused before the expiry of his or her remand period (which maybe 60 days or 90 days depending on the case).

However, the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation period does not apply to Section 167 (2) of CrPC and would not affect a person’s right to get default bail under the section, as police investigations or filing of final report are not covered by the order, the judge explained.

Criticising the police for citing the apex court’s order as a ground for denying default bail to the petitioner, he said, “The executive (police) must exhibit nimble footwork and not hide behind judicial orders. Only little children hide behind the ‘saree end’ of their mothers.”

Pointing out that the apex court’s intention was to protect the litigants who might have difficulty in filing cases due to the lockdown, the judge opined that denial of default bail to the petitioner will not only go against the said intention but also amount to violation of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21. 

However, the above observations would not apply to certain special laws, such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and NDPS Act, 1985, he further clarified.

G Settu of Krishnagiri, the petitioner, was arrested by Thanjavur police in a robbery case on January 19, 2020. Since the police failed to file report in the case even after expiry of his remand period (90 days) on April 18, 2020, he approached the court.



Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp