Default bail under Section 167 CrPC survives Covid limitation orders and cannot be defeated by extended filing time.

Section 167 CrPC protects personal liberty under Article 21, and expiry of the prescribed investigation period gives the accused an indefeasible right to default bail if bail is offered. The Supreme Court held that the suo motu limitation order issued during the Covid-19 pandemic was meant to prevent litigants from being time-barred and did not extend the time for filing charge sheets or enlarge the prosecution's period under Section 167(2). Lockdown restrictions also did not suspend the statutory right to default bail. The High Court's contrary view was inconsistent with settled law and judicial discipline, so refusal of default bail was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order extending limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic could be read as extending the period for filing the charge sheet so as to defeat the accused's right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a safeguard for personal liberty and operates in aid of the constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On expiry of the prescribed period, an indefeasible right accrues to the accused to be released on bail if he is prepared to furnish bail. The order passed in the suo motu limitation proceedings was intended to protect litigants from being time-barred in filing proceedings and was not directed to police investigation or filing of charge sheets. It could not, therefore, be construed as enlarging the time available to the prosecution under Section 167(2). The restrictions imposed during lockdown also did not suspend or curtail the statutory right to default bail. The contrary view taken by the High Court was inconsistent with the settled law and with judicial discipline in the face of an earlier coordinate Bench decision taking the opposite view.

Conclusion: The accused remained entitled to default bail, and the High Court's order refusing it was unsustainable.

---