The Supreme Court said, lockdown is not like an emergency; Can not take away the right to automatic bail

Stating that the lockdown imposed in the country due to Corona was not the same as the Emergency, the Supreme Court said that an accused cannot be denied the right to automatic bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time. With this conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s decision in which bail was refused even though the chargesheet was not filed within the stipulated time.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan held that the Madras High Court is of the view that no accused should be given the right to automatic (default) bail in the sanctions imposed during the lockdown, even though the charge sheet under section 167 (2) Not filed within the stipulated time.

Rights of life and liberty of the people are embedded

Referring to the ADM Jabalpur case during the Emergency, the Supreme Court said that its decision in that case was retrograde. It is noteworthy that in the 1976 ADM Jabalpur case, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, with a majority verdict of four each, held that Article 21 itself embodied the right to life and liberty of the people. When Article 21 is in suspended condition, the life and liberty of any person are endangered.

At the same time, a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Justice MR Shah and Justice V Ramasubramaniam overturned the Madras High Court ruling that the lockdown was similar to declaration of emergency.

The bench said that an accused should not be deprived of the rights under Section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time (60 or 90 days). The bench said that it is our clear belief that the single bench of the Madras High Court has erred in its decision by considering lockdown as an emergency. With this, the court granted bail to the accused on personal bond of ten thousand and two sureties.