{"id":238054,"date":"2020-10-26T21:22:42","date_gmt":"2020-10-26T15:52:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=238054"},"modified":"2020-10-30T10:51:25","modified_gmt":"2020-10-30T05:21:25","slug":"sc-courts-cannot-adopt-a-rigid-or-formalistic-approach-while-interpreting-section-1672-crpc-read-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/26\/sc-courts-cannot-adopt-a-rigid-or-formalistic-approach-while-interpreting-section-1672-crpc-read-why\/","title":{"rendered":"SC| Courts cannot adopt a rigid or formalistic approach while interpreting Section 167(2) CrPC. Read why"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Interpreting Section 167(2) CrPC, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, MM Shantanagoudar and Vineet Sarah, JJ has said that the Courts cannot adopt a rigid or formalistic approach whilst considering any issue that touches upon the rights contained in Article 21. It said,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe history of the enactment of Section 167(2), CrPC and the safeguard of \u2018default bail\u2019 contained in the Proviso thereto is intrinsically linked to Article 21 and is nothing but a legislative exposition of the constitutional safeguard that no person shall be detained except in accordance with rule of law.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Going into the legislative intent, the Court noticed that Section 167(2) was enacted providing for time limits on the period of remand of the accused, proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed, failing which the accused acquires the indefeasible right to bail.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026 the intent of the legislature was to balance the need for sufficient time limits to complete the investigation with the need to protect the civil liberties of the accused.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 167(2) provides for a clear mandate that the investigative agency must collect the required evidence within the prescribed time period, failing which the accused can no longer be detained. This ensures that the investigating officers are compelled to act swiftly and efficiently without misusing the prospect of further remand. This also ensures that the Court takes cognizance of the case without any undue delay from the date of giving information of the offence, so that society at large does not lose faith and develop cynicism towards the criminal justice system. Hence,<\/p>\n

\u201cSection 167(2) has to be interpreted keeping in mind the threefold objectives expressed by the legislature namely ensuring a fair trial, expeditious investigation and trial, and setting down a rationalized procedure that protects the interests of indigent sections of society. These objects are nothing but subsets of the overarching fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Further, in case of any ambiguity in the construction of a penal statute, the Courts must favour the\u00a0 \u00a0interpretation which leans towards protecting the rights of the accused, given the ubiquitous\u00a0\u00a0 power disparity between the individual accused and the State machinery. This is applicable not only in the case of substantive penal statutes but also in the case of procedures providing for the curtailment of the liberty of the accused.<\/p>\n

The Court, hence, concluded as follows:<\/p>\n