The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an accused to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. when the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed period, and the clarification that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 did not extend the period of limitation for filing a charge sheet by the Investigating Officer in a crime.

JUDGMENT

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the order dated 27.05.2020 in Crime No.50/2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge and Special Court, Yadgiri, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the sister of the deceased had lodged complaint against the petitioner and other accused who have abetted the deceased to commit suicide by hanging by narrating in detail in First Information Statement (for short 'FIS). Accordingly crime is registered against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 149 of IPC. The said FIS is lodged on 14.03.2018.

3. Based on the FIS given by the sister of the deceased, First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was registered on 14.03.2018. Upon acting on this, investigation was commenced. The record reveals that this petitioner being accused No.1 was arrested on 04.02.2020 and was produced before the Court, regarding this the remand report is produced. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet on 08.06.2020. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court praying to grant him statutory bail as the Investigating Officer failed to file charge sheet within 90 days as stipulated in the said provision. Therefore, entitled to release him on statutory bail for the default committed by the Investigating Officer in not filing of charge sheet within 90 days.

4. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 by referring the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under the special law. Therefore, by referring the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra and by forming opinion that since the period of limitation is extended, therefore, dismissed the application. The learned Sessions Judge had observed that the petitioner had filed bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. during the lockdown period, which is premature if lockdown period is excluded as on the date of filing of the application.

5. Further observed that initially the Investigating Officer invoked Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC/ST (POA) Act) but at that stage the Court did not know under which provisions charge sheet is going to be filed and investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet is not filed, it is only due to spreading of disease COVID- 19, therefore, by making these observations the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner/accused No.1 had preferred the present revision petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020 had not extended the period of limitation so far as filing of final report by the police under Code of Criminal Procedure but the learned Sessions Judge has misconstrued the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by taking wrong impression of the said order had observed that the period of lockdown is to be excluded for filing of the charge sheet also. Therefore, by such erroneous order, the application filed by the petitioner is dismissed which is illegal and contrary to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.Kasi vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District (DD 19.06.202