Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Varun, S/o. Babu and Anr. - Petitioners
Vs.
State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Crime No.330 of 2023 - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.901 of 2024
Decided On : 01-02-2024
STATUTORY BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 167(2), Section 36A(4) of NDPS Act - The court discussed the provisions of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which grants an indefeasible right to statutory bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time. The court emphasized that the date of e-filing should be recognized as the date of filing for the purpose of calculating the statutory period. The court also highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the need for timely judicial processes, referencing previous judgments that reinforced these principles. The court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to statutory bail as the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.05.2023. They filed a statutory bail application on 15.11.2023, claiming that the charge sheet was not filed within the statutory period. The prosecution contended that the final report was filed on 13.11.2023, which was before the expiry of the 180-day period, and thus the petitioners were not entitled to statutory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final report was indeed filed through e-filing on 13.11.2023, and cognizance was taken on 15.11.2023. The court ruled that the e-filing date should be considered the date of filing, and since the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period, the petitioners were not entitled to statutory bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC given the timing of the charge sheet filing and the interpretation of e-filing as the date of filing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the date of e-filing is to be recognized as the date of filing for the purposes of Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The court emphasized that personal liberty must be protected and that the statutory period must be strictly adhered to, but in this case, the charge sheet was filed within the required timeframe, negating the petitioners' claim for statutory bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioners were not entitled to statutory bail as the charge sheet was filed within the statutory period. The court left open the option for the petitioners to seek regular bail before the lower court.
ORDER :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
This petition has been filed challenging the written endorsement of the Court below dated 15.11.2023 wherein the statutory bail petition filed by the petitioner was returned on the ground that the charge sheet has already been filed by the respondent.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 29.01.2024, this Court passed the following order :-
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.05.2023. The 118th day expired on the mid night of 13.11.2023. The petitioners filed the statutory bail on 15.11.2023 at 10.30 a.m. However, this application has been returned by the Court below through the impugned endorsement dated 15.11.2023 on the ground that charge sheet has already been filed.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that the final report was filed on 13.11.2023 at 11.24 a.m. and it was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.96 of 2023 on 15.11.2023. Therefore, it was contended that the petitioners are not entitled for statutory bail and that this bail application can be considered only on merits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for some time to verify and make her submissions.
4. Post this case under the same caption on 29.01.2024.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Mrs.Krithika Kamal, learned counsel for the petitioner produced the print-out of the case status in CC No.96 of 2023. The learned counsel contended that the said print out makes it clear that the final report was filed only on 15.11.2023 and it was numbered on the same day as CC No.96 of 2023. However, even before the filing of this final report, the petitioner had filed the statutory bail on 15.11.2023 at 10.30 a.m. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the claim made by the prosecution as if the final report was filed on 13.11.2023 is unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate her submission, relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in [Enforcement Directorate, Government of India Vs. Kapil Wadhawan and another etc.,] reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 249.
3. The learned Additional Public prosecutor once again reiterated that the final report was filed on 13.11.2023 itself and it was taken cognizance and numbered on 15.11.2023 as CC No.96 of 2023. Hence, it was contended that the statutory bail application filed by the petitioner on 15.11.2023 cannot be entertained and if at all the petitioner seeks for bail, it can only be by way of regular bail, which should be considered in line with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. The only clarification that has to be given in the present case is as to when actually the final report was filed by the respondent police before the Court below and when it was taken cognizance and assigned a case number. The learned Special Judge, Coimbatore, is directed to give a clarity in this regard.
5. Post this case under the same caption on 31.01.2024.
3. Pursuant to the above order, this Court received a report from the Special Judge, Coimbatore, to the effect that the final report was filed with all the relevant documents on 13.11.2023 through e-filing mode and that the same was taken cognizance on 15.11.2023 and a case number was assigned as CC No.96 of 2023.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the final report is said to have been filed on 13.11.2023 through e-filing platform and the papers were not physically available in the Court. The physical papers were available before the Court only on 15.11.2023 and by then, the period of 180 days had expired and the petitioner had also filed a petition seeking for statutory bail. Therefore, the indefeasible right of the petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.PC had come into force and therefore, the Court below ought to have dealt with the petit
The court established that the date of e-filing is the relevant date for determining the filing of a charge sheet under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, reinforcing the principle that personal liberty mus....
The detention period for statutory bail is computed from the date of remand authorized by the Magistrate, not from the date of arrest.
Defective charge sheet filing beyond 180 days or to wrong court entitles accused to statutory bail under NDPS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an oral application can be sufficient to release an accused on statutory bail, and the failure to file the final report within the statutory t....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and the court must take prompt action to enforce this right, restricting t....
The main legal point established is that the accused has an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the NDPS Act, and this right should not be denied due to delays or the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the conditions for granting extension of time for investigation u....
The accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. remains enforceable, and the court must promptly decide on bail applications to prevent the prosecution from circumventing this right.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the accused's indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the obligations of the concerned Magistrate to promptly consider ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
