Bombay high court, considering a criminal appeal, overturns special courts order granting an extension to submit charge sheet and further detention of the accused. The high court granted bail on the grounds of non-submission of charge sheet within the prescribed time and remarked “The law has to prevail and the prosecution cannot avail of such subterfuges to frustrate or destroy the legal right of the accused.”
FACTS
The appellant was accused of robbery and other charges under Arms Act were also framed against him in the FIR and further provisions of MCOC (Maharashtra control of organized crime act) were also applied and the accused was arrested under the same. The 90-day statutory period for filing the charge sheet was expired and the investigating officer reached to the special court for the extension of time for tendering the charge sheet and a report by the public prosecutor was submitted before the court regarding which the special court granted the extension and rejected the bail of the accused which led to the criminal appeal filed by the accused in the high court seeking bail.
APPELLANT’S PRAYER
The appellant’s counsel contended that the report by the public prosecutor was not compliant with the provisions of the MCOC act and raised issues regarding the submission of such a report. The counsel further argued that his client's detention had to end in the light of the fact that the 90-day statutory period for filing the charge sheet was expired and an indefeasible right was created in favor of the accused under section 167(2) of CrPC, thus urged the high court to quash the special court’s order and grant bail to the accused.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
The prosecution strongly opposed the release of the accused on bail on the grounds that the appellant had a history of committing serious offenses which shows that the accused shows no respect to the law and will try to compromise evidence if released on bail. The respondent also submitted before the court the prosecutor’s report citing reasons for an extension of investigation and further submitted that the investigating officer was infected with the coronavirus which slowed down the investigation and further restrictions of inter district travel and physical contact with people were not possible due to the fear of contagion due to which the investigation was not completed with the expected pace and charge sheet wasn’t filed under the statutory period.
COURT’S DECISION
The division bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice B.U. Debadwar, found that as per the facts the prosecution’s application and report was filed after the expiry of the 90 day period due to which the legal right of default bail was already created in the favour of the accused. The court after reviewing the application and report by the prosecutor for extension of time, criticized the report for being an application just tendered through the APP and couldn’t even call that a report. The court relying on multiple supreme court judgments mentioned that the role of the Public Prosecutor is considered to be a one of applying mind independently to the request of the Investigation Agency, before submitting his report to the Special Court approving the request for extension of time. He is not a mere postman or a forwarding agency and emphasized on the role of public prosecutor and further bashed the report for not being satisfied on the grounds that neither the reasons were given for investigation could not be completed nor the objectives were given which were to be achieved through further investigation for which extension of time was requested.
The court reproved the impugned judgment on the grounds that it held the current lockdown akin to the proclamation of emergency and diminished the right of the accused for default bail. The high court took down the special court’s rationale stating that restrictions imposed during the lockdown by the government shall not operate as a restriction to the right of the accused and in the present case the accused had an indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. While criticizing the impugned judgment the court said “The contrary view taken by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is not only erroneous but also sends wrong signals to the State and the prosecution emboldening them to act in breach of liberty of a person.” The court, in conclusion, struck down the impugned judgment, granted bail to the accused and ordered to place the copy of the order to the offices of the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, the Director-General of Police, State of Maharashtra and the Director of Prosecution for perusal stating the reason as “to issue directions for enlightening the prosecutors for meticulously following the crystallized position in law of submitting their report with reasons for seeking an extension of time for investigation.”
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
