CR. APP. NO. 2018 -
SLP NO. 6453 OF 2018
It is respectfully showth:
- That the present appeal has been filed by the appellant /accused
(referred to as accused no. 1 and 2) with respect to the charges framed
against the accused no.1 to 18 punishable u/s 143, 341, 323, 452, 336, 302
r/w section 149 of the IPC
- That the accused were arrested by the police officials who were sent on
remand to PC. Since then no report is submitted by the police and the
accused in the present case were in custody.
- That the charges framed against all the co-accused (from accused no. 1
to 18) are cognizable non-bailable-non compoundable offence. where the court
cannot opt for an out-of-court settlement. The offence committed by the accused
along with other co-c\accused in order to commit the death of the respondent by
constituting unlawful assembly thereby committing house trespass and causing
grievous hurt, wrongfully restraint in order to endanger the life of others and
the deceased committed the above-stated offence. the act or omission of the
accused was intentional, having knowledge that the grievous hurt caused to the
respondent would have resulted in his death.
- That on 24.03.2018 First Information Report was listed with P.S
Baharwanda Kalan, Distt. Sawai Madhopur
- That on 08.04.2018- The accused were arrested by the police officials
- That on 5.05.2018- The present plaint filed seeking relief for
reasonable and non-biased inspection.
- That on 03.07.2018- directives issued by the apex court.
- The learned Public Prosecutor for the state has submitted that not only
fair investigation shall be conducted by a gazetted police officer, not below
the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police but the report of the
investigation along with the opinion of the Investigating Officer shall be
submitted in the concerned Court within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order by the Investigating Officer. The
observation made from the above, the court disposed off the said complaint by
recording reasons in writing. The court has further observed that since the
appellant was put behind the bars on police custody from 08.04.2018, the
investigation that has to be operated in accordance with the conditions given
under Section 167 of the CRPC should have been completed by 07.07.2018.
- 6. 05.07.2018- The document submitted by the officer under Section 173
of the Code was submitted by the officer prior to the court namely, the JM.
The PR was filed by the officer. The report was submitted through the ASP
who is a lower rank police office and not competent enough to forward the
current status quo To the competent judicial officer, same was therefore
perverse to the directive approved by the Apex court on 03.07.2018. The
submission was made before the court for issuance of certified copies of the
aforesaid order dated 3.7.2018. Subsequently on the expiration of the
duration of 90 days an application for bail had been moved by the appellant
under section- 167(2) of CRPC.
- 7. 9.7.2018- The judicial magistrate of competent jurisdiction rejected
the relief sought by the appellant to grant release of accused u/s 167(2) of CRPC. The Apex Court reports that while the charges submitted dated 5.7.2018,
this was not in accordance with the directive released by the apex court,
knowing that the charge sheet was refused for further consideration due to
technical defaults. However, it is to be noted that the order passed by the high
court dated 3.7.2018 was in extension to the period within which the
investigation is to be completed.
- 8. 23.7.2018- The rejection of the above application was challenged
through criminal bail no.9035 of 2018, the same was subjected to rejection
by the high court on the above-mentioned date with reasons on record:
No case for grant of bail under Section 167(2) CR.P.C. is made out, as the
time was extended by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition)
No.3517 of 2018 and Investigating Officer was afforded two months time to
file charge-sheet. It is also, important to note that the Investigating
Officer had produced the charge-sheet before the concerned Court prior to 90
days but the same was returned in view of the order of the High Court.
The present appeal was filed challenging the directives delivered by the apex
court of law -the same is pending before the court of appeal.
Relevant Laws And Legal Interpretation
The controversy lies on the very fact that whether the time limit given under
the sec 167 for completion of the investigation can be extended or not under the
provisions of CRPC.this issue is crystallized in the judgement of the court, in
the matter of Uday mohan lal acharay V state of Maharashtra
 , the court took
the decision given in the case of Hitendra Vishnu and others V state of
 and Bipin shantialal Vstate of gujtrat
 the court held that on
the expiry of 90 days or 60 days of the limitation given under section 167 of
the CRPC is an nonsuggestive bonafide view for grant of bail the evasion in
making bail would compel the authorities to realize the accused as soon as
possible after the expiry of the above said period mentioned under the CRPC.
Such kind of default on the part of the authorities of not realizing the accused
after the completion of the investigating period And considering the fact that
none of the reports submitted by the authorities would not allow the state to
aggravate the objective, would enable authorities to realize the cussed within
the period prescribed under the CRPC.
The judgment was given in day moham lal case was constantly followed by the
court in other cases also examine the above issue very closely and concluded
that the time given under the CRPC for investigating the case should be strictly
construed without causing prejudice to either of the parties in the case.
The concurrent matter aroused before the appellate court would be interpreted
this stipulation mentioned above can be extended. The past contextual enactment
of sec 167 of CRPC has been dealt with in the matter Rakesh Kumar Paul V state
 where the court considered the State report submitted from legal
committee and context, objectives, reasoning which introduces the above code.
The report given by the Law commission clearly examined the delaying tactics
adopted by the police officials by submitting incomplete report before the
magistrate so that more time could be given for further detaining the accused
illegally and compelling the court to exercise power under sec 344 of CRPC
further postpone the proceedings to confine the appellants back to the custody.
The report asks for strictly construing the above issue with no further
extension of time for investigation.
The reason behind the enactment of section 167 under CRPC is to provide the time
limit within which the investigation could be completed. which ought not to be
completed within 24 hours.
The matter to be decided by the court itself that whether the time period given
can be extended or not of whether the accused can be remanded back to the
custody of not, all the entries made in the diary should be submitted before the
In the case of Rakesh Kumar paul (supra)
the court observed as under:
That the petitioner permitted by the court for releasing him against the
confinement based upon current circumstances given in the present matter. It was
further contended that the magistrate judicially competent must grant
realization of the appellant upon reasonable stipulations so imposed. The
provision was inserted with the view to protect the arrest of the claimant upon
reasonable reasons subject to charges framed against him. Therefore, the
claimant is eligible for the realization of the appellant on regular bail
allowed upon merit not affecting the arrest of the petitioner.
The matter was further concluded, comprehensibly by J. Deepak Gupta, according
to him the person still be subject to be realized on default bail on merits.
Therefore, the appellant is eligible for realisation on surety based upon valid
reasons. -entitling him a grant of regular bail.
Facts In Issue
- Whether The Investigation Was Considered To Be Completed U/S 167(2) Of
- Whether The Impunged Order Passed By The Hc Subject To Extension Of
Limitation Period Given Under Section 167 Of Crpc?
- Can The High Court Extend The Period Of Remand?
Contentions Of The Appellant
Contentions Of Respondent
- It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the police report
filed u/s 173 of CRPC(5.7.18) was returned by the judicial magistrate for
complying with the order passed by the HC(3.7.18) is inappropriate and
contravening with rights guaranteed to the appellant under different laws
securing the justice to the appellant
- It was further contended by the counsel for the appellant that on the
expiry of 90 days, no charge sheet was submitted by officials to JM of competent
jurisdiction and thus the order passed by the HC prima facie was inappropriate
by neglecting the evidence put on record by the appellant.
- It was further urged by the appellant's counsel that neither any
provisions given under the CRPC any duration for the completion of the
investigation has been prescribed nor the extension of the above said period
could be construed by the HC through passing the impugned order of not extending
the period of limitation prescribed by sec. 167 of the CRPC.
Ratio Of The Case
- It was contended by the counsel for the respondent that the
investigation in the present case was completed within the duration
prescribed by section 167 of the CRPC. Immediately charge sheet was filed by the police officials to the
judicial magistrate of the competent jurisdiction on 5.7.18. the court had
further returned all the records in compliance with the order dated 3.7.18 for
completion of further investigation in the present case.
- It was further submitted by the respondent that the present order passed
by the HC of not allowing the extension of the time in furtherance of the
period prescribed by sec.167 of CRPC as appropriate and a move towards upholding the
procedure as valid and wholly effective.
The observations in the present case were made by J. AM Sapre and UU Lalit who
confirmed the judgement 2:0-by majority.
The judges were of the opinion about appellant eligible for realization on
surety inserted u/s 167(2) of the CRPC irrespectively upon the mere fact that
the report submitted by officials was put back by JM due to procedural defaults.
The Hon'ble bench further noticed that none of the laws introduced under CRPC
empowered anyone to extend the limitation period for completion of investigation
beyond the duration prescribed therein.
The court closely examine the validity and correctness of the judgement passed
by the HC on order dated 23.7.18.
It was an illusionary situation for the judicial magistrate to assume the time
limit within which the present case was filed before the court as there was a
delay in filing of the charge sheet making it harder for the court to judging
the whole state of events based on whether on merits for further remanding
appellant to the custody.
Perhaps the situation could be curved if the public prosecutor could have
reported to the court about delaying while submitting of the report, closely
reaching the deadline for completion of the investigation by the police
officials, mere curable irregularity in the submission of the charge sheet by
the police officials not competent in delivering reports to JM. It would have
been an ideal situation if all the substantial material documents enclosing the
information about the duration within which the investigation was completed.
The Appellant was devoid of safeguards given under the legal laws. The JM would
have considered the issues in the present case on merits and not blindly had
issued the order of remanding the accused back to custody.
The most eminent issue that revolves around the whole case that whether the HC
had the power to extend the period of limitation for investigating the case?
It is observed by the court that:
"Neither the HC has the power to extend the
duration for investigating the case nor any provisions in any other law empower
the court to extend the period within which the investigation must be completed
-not admitting of any such eventuality".
However, there are certain enactments such as TADA Act,1985, MCOC Act 1999 which
clearly allows the extension of the period of investigation which has the
competency to affect the operation of sec.167 of CRPC. The hon'ble court further
held that it has the power to interrogate the case within two months by the
The court observed by rejecting all the contentions of the PP representing the
state that the appellant has the right to be released on bail, showing further
willingness to comply with the directions given by the court in the further case
whenever called on for hearing.
Ruling Of The Case
The court after considering the contention put forth by both counsels for the
respected parties as argumentative and subjected towards the issue arose in the
present case. The court is of the opinion that the order passed by the HC is
inappropriate by not allowing the benefits possessed by the appellant in the
present case and giving prevalence to the substantial material in hand totally
negating the right available to the appellant.
Hence, the court after considering the willingness of the appellant to get the
benefits of the bail without causing prejudice to the rights of either
parties-allow the present bail application-setting aside the impugned order
passed by the HC. The application sets to be disposed off.
- (2001) 5 SCC 453
- (1994) 4 SCC 602
- (1994) 5 SCC 410
- (2001) 5 SCC 453
- (2017) 15 SCC 67
Please Drop Your Comments