Justice Prakash-led bench to take call on conflicting bail orders

As per the issue, the first order was passed on May 8, wherein a chain snatcher had moved bail on the ground that the police report was not filed within the mandatory time-limit.

The single judge who granted bail to the chain snatcher held that the Supreme Court order did not touch upon any specific extension of time for completing investigation during the pandemic and once there is an expiry of the mandatory period as prescribed under Section 167 (2) CrPC, the accused was entitled for bail.

But another judge, in another case, wherein the offence was idol theft, refused to grant bail to the accused, despite police not filing its report within the mandatory period. The single judge concluded by inferring from the Supreme Court order that the period of limitation for investigation under Section 167CrPC would also stand extended keeping in view the extraordinary situation of the COVID-19 virus spread which has led to a general order of extension by the apex court.

Following this, Chief Justice AP Sahi, observing that the applicability of the apex court order has to be considered in the light of the fact that Section 167 CrPC appears to only set out the outer limit of the detaining power of the magistrate without charge, said, “Thus, there are two conflicting opinions arising out of the two orders and in my considered view, since the same is likely to have a direct impact on bail orders to be passed by the subordinate judiciary or even by this court, the matter deserves to be resolved by an authoritative pronouncement.”

Based on this, the Chief Justice held that the conflict between the said two orders raising a pure question of law based on the interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court deserves to be clarified by an authoritative pronouncement and accordingly directed the division bench presided over by Justice Prakash to answer the question.