Can’t deny bail to robber citing SC order: HC
K.Kaushik@timesgroup.com
Madurai: 09.05.2020
Chain-snatcher Settu, son of Govindaraj, in jail since January 19, would never have imagined his innocuous bail petition would prompt Madras high court to write a treatise on personal liberty and how the court would reject police attempts to deny him bail by citing a recent order of the Supreme Court. Arrested by Vallam police for robbing a woman at knife-point, Settu faced two charges under Section 392 carrying maximum imprisonment of 10 years, and Section 397 that carries seven-year jail term. Police have to file the chargesheet within a maximum of 90 days, or else Settu will be eligible for bail by default. Settu will complete 90 days in custody on May 18.
When his bail petition came up before Justice G R Swaminathan in Madurai bench of the court, the prosecution cited a March 23 order of the Supreme Court, issued suo motu in view of the lockdown and closure of courts. The apex court had given an omnibus relief to all cases facing limitation and deadlines, and said those deadlines would stand extended with effect from March 15 until further orders.
Citing this extension of limitation period, prosecution opposed bail for Settu saying the failure to file chargesheet within the mandatory 90-day period will not end in default bail for Settu, for extension of time given by the apex court would apply for filing final reports too.
Justice Swaminathan, rejecting the submission, said denial of compulsive bail to him will definitely amount to violation of his fundamental right. The noble object of the Supreme Court's direction and its benevolence was to ensure that litigants do not lose their rights due to lockdown. “But, filing of final report stands on a different footing altogether,” he said, adding that the apex court did not mention that police investigations would also be covered by its order.
No comments:
Post a Comment