Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Supreme Court's order extending limitation during the COVID-19 lockdown applies to the time-limit under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so as to defeat the accused's right to default bail.
Analysis: The right under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arises on expiry of the prescribed detention period and is not a mere procedural limitation for filing a proceeding. The extension of limitation ordered by the Supreme Court was directed at suits, appeals, applications and similar proceedings governed by limitation law, and did not refer to police investigation or the filing of final reports under Section 167(2). The statutory scheme of Section 167 distinguishes investigation custody from ordinary limitation, and the Court also noted that special statutes such as the NDPS Act contain express provisions for extension of investigation time, unlike the present case. In these circumstances, the accused's accrued right to default bail could not be taken away by invoking the general extension of limitation.
Conclusion: The order extending limitation did not apply to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the petitioner was entitled to default bail.