Point of Law : Fact of the accused absconding or delaying investigation during period of he being absconding would not be relevant for consideration of application Subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. [Para 13.5]

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to: (a) issue notice to the Respondent; (b) call for all records and proceedings of the Special Court with reference to the Annexures, as also the records of emails received, printed and processed and such necessary documents, including but not limited to internal mechanism guidelines/orders/SOP's. and records on guidelines/orders/SOP’s.

ii. This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order by the Special Court in Spl C.C No. 872 of 2018 dated 12-05-2020 at Annexure-A.

iii. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner on such conditions as deemed fit.

iv. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to examine the records and pass necessary orders for departmental proceedings against the concerned judicial staff/registry officers/clerks etc. found responsible for: (a) negligence and dereliction of duty; and, (b) frustrating the fundamental rights of the Petitioner.

v. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass orders and grant other reliefs as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case herein and in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner is accused No.18 in CC 872/2018 pending on the file of the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Karnataka Control and Organised Crime Act at Bengaluru.

3. FIR in Crime No.221/2017 was registered with the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police station, Bengaluru as regards the murder of one Gowri Lankesh. He was arrested on 9.01.2020 and remanded to judicial custody on 27.01.2020. The petitioner on 4.05.2020 filed an application under subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. seeking for statutory/default bail. Without passing any orders on the said application, the Special Court remanded the petitioner to judicial custody on 12.05.2020. It is challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri.Kiran.B.S, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that:

4.1. Being the case of murder, a supplementary charge sheet was required to be filed on or before 9.04.2020 i.e. 90th date from the date on which the petitioner was arrested i.e., 9.01.2020. No charge sheet having been laid within that period of time, the application which had been filed by the petitioner by following the Standard Operating Procedure issued by this court vide notification dated 16.04.2020, the petitioner’s counsel having forwarded an application under Subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C., vide email dated 4.5.2019 post the expiry of period of 90 days from the date of arrest, the Special Court ought to have enlarged the petitioner on default bail.

4.2. Instead of doing so without orders being passed on the application under subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, the requisition for extension of period for filing charge sheet on 12.05.2020 was considered and allowed which was contrary to Subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C. The extension of time by exercising powers under clause (b) Subsection 2 of Section 22 of Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as ‘KCOCA’] without passing orders on the application filed under subsection (2) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, is nonest.

4.3. No opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to cause reply to the request made for extension of time by the respondent-State and as such, the rights of the petitioner have been violated.

4.4. The petitioner has been following up on the matter in the Special Court, however, due to the COVID pandemic and SOP in force, only 20 matters were taken per day resulting in the petitioner continuing to be in custody thereby impinging upon his life and liberty. Therefore, he submits that the application filed by the petitioner on 4.05.2020 by email sent to the email address provided under the SOP is in due compliance with the SOP and it was for the Court to pass necessary orders on the same. It was also the duty of the concerned court