MOHAMMED ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.53 of 2020 of Valapattanam Police Station registered under Sections 354B , 376(2)(f)(n) , 376(3) of IPC and Sections 4(2) r/w. Section 3(a) , (b), 6(l), 5(j), (ii), (n), 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w. 9(l)(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime on 17.1.2020 and was remanded to judicial custody. Immediately prior to the expiry of 90 days, the petitioner herein filed an application for bail invoking Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge took note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation has already been completed and the final report has been prepared. However, in view of the lockdown imposed consequent to SARS COVID 19 Pandemic, the investigating officer was not in a position to submit the final report within the statutory period. The learned Special Judge held that owing to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner herein was not entitled to default bail and his application was dismissed.

(3.) Sri.B.H.Mansoor, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on the expiry of 90 days, there was no final report placed before the Special Judge for the consideration of the court. According to the learned counsel, the provision of the Cr.P.C . does not contemplate any extension of period on any grounds whatsoever and if the final report is not laid within the period prescribed in the Code and if the accused expresses his willingness to be admitted to the benefit of bail and prefers an application, the jurisdictional court will have no jurisdiction to authorise the detention of the accused beyond the said period. The expiry of the period under Section 167(2) confers on the accused a valuable and indefeasible right and the same cannot be denied on any grounds whatsoever. It is argued that the prosecution cannot be allowed to trifle with the individual liberty and the provision with regard to conferment of benefits to the accused for bail will have to be construed strictly in favour of individual liberty flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, [2001(5) SCC 453] Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others, [1994 (4) SCC 602] Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay, AIR 2013 SC 2687 and Union of India Thamisharasi and Others, [1995 (4) SCC 190].