Don’t hide behind judicial orders passed during lockdown, Madras HC tells cops by Sekar Reporter · May 11, 2020 States Tamil NaduDon’t hide behind judicial orders passed during lockdown, Madras HC tells copsThe judge opined that denial of default bail to the petitioner will not only go against the said intention but also amount to violation of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21. Published: 10th May 2020 07:15 PM | Last Updated: 10th May 2020 07:15 PM | A+A A-Madras High Court building. (Photo | EPS)By Express News ServiceMADURAI: Observing that the Supreme Court’s order extending the limitation period for filing cases during lockdown cannot be taken as a ground to deny default bail to a person, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ordered the release of a man accused in a robbery case in Thanjavur on default bail.Justice G R Swaminathan noted that according to Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate cannot authorise the detention of an accused if the police fail to file a final report against the accused before the expiry of his or her remand period (which maybe 60 days or 90 days depending on the case).However, the Supreme Court’s order extending limitation period does not apply to Section 167 (2) of CrPC and would not affect a person’s right to get default bail under the section, as police investigations or filing of final report are not covered by the order, the judge explained.Criticising the police for citing the apex court’s order as a ground for denying default bail to the petitioner, he said, “The executive (police) must exhibit nimble footwork and not hide behind judicial orders. Only little children hide behind the ‘saree end’ of their mothers.”ADVERTISEMENTPointing out that the apex court’s intention was to protect the litigants who might have difficulty in filing cases due to the lockdown, the judge opined that denial of default bail to the petitioner will not only go against the said intention but also amount to violation of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21. However, the above observations would not apply to certain special laws, such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and NDPS Act, 1985, he further clarified.G Settu of Krishnagiri, the petitioner, was arrested by Thanjavur police in a robbery case on January 19, 2020. Since the police failed to file report in the case even after expiry of his remand period (90 days) on April 18, 2020, he approached the court.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Anand Venkatesh, posted the matter for hearing on 16.10.2020, requiring the State and Central Governments to file reply in the above stated facts and circumstances. [10/9, 17:40] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No. 14643 of 2020 (Item No.93 in VC -47 Court – 09.10.2020) The Writ Petition in W.P.No. 14643 of 2020 filed by Dr. M. Syed Fahrudeen and Dr. G.Kumaravel, Assistant October 10, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published October 10, 2020
Justice R Subramanian, who heard the bail plea, said: “The fact that this court has directed the trial to be completed within a period of three months should also be borne in mind.” Therefore the court does not see any reason to grant bail, he ordered. August 29, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published August 29, 2020
[5/9, 15:54] Sekarreporter: [5/9, 15:54] K balu: I filled caveat in Supreme Court against TSMAC SLP K.Balu Adv [5/9, 15:54] Sekarreporter: 🙏🏽 [5/9, 15:55] Sekarreporter: #Breaking : டாஸ்மாக் திறக்க தடையை எதிர்த்து உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் தமிழக அரசு தாக்கல் செய்த மனு * தங்கள் தரப்பு கருத்தை கேட்டறிந்தபின்பு முடிவெடுக்க வேண்டும் – பாமக மற்றும் சில அமைப்புகள் சார்பில் கேவியட் மனு #Supremecourt May 9, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published May 9, 2020