ORDER : Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. When the instant matter is being taken up, Sri Zain Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is to be argued by Sri Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel from Delhi through Video Conferencing. A third supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, annexing a letter by Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India dated 8.7.2020 (Annexure No. TSA-1) in connection with Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 143/2020: Yadav Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and SLP (Crl.) No. 2965/2020: Yadav Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation filed by the petitioner and submitted that the Supreme Court has requested this Court to decide the present writ petition today itself. Counsel for the CBI has also confirmed this fact that a direction has been issued by the Supreme Court for deciding the present writ petition today itself. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Third Supplementary Affidavit is taken on record. 2. Petitioner is an accused vide FIR No. RC/DST/2018/A/0004 dated 17.1.2018 for the offences under Sections 120-B of IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (b) & 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station STF, District New Delhi. He was taken into custody on 10.2.2020 and was produced before the Special CBI Court on 11.2.2020 for remand. CBI Court was pleased to remand him to CBI custody, vide order dated 11.2.2020. However, charge-sheet could not be filed within the stipulated period of 60 days. 3. As there was complete lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic, on 12.4.2020, the petitioner filed an application for default bail through e-mail before the District Judge, Ghaziabad under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC). As appears from the documents available on record, the District Judge, Ghaziabad forwarded the said application to the Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad on 16.4.2020 and in turn, on 17.4.2020, the Special CBI Court had gone to the District Jail, Ghaziabad for considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC. 4. As appears from the documents available on record, the District Judge, Ghaziabad forwarded the said application to the Special CBI Court, Ghaziabad on 16.4.2020 and in turn, on 17.4.2020, the Special CBI Court had gone to the District Jail, Ghaziabad for considering the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC. 4. Vide impugned order dated 17.4.2020, the Special CBI Court has rejected the said application on the ground that limitation of 60 days would not be counted for the purpose of Section 167 (2) of Cr PC because of the lock down due to COVID-19 pandemic and in view of the order passed by the Apex Court on 23.3.2020 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 3/2020: In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. 5. According to the petitioner, though he had completed 60 days in Jail and charge-sheet has not been filed within the stipulated period as defined in Cr PC, he is entitled for default bail. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was sufficient opportunity for the CBI to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet within 60 days, but neither investigation was completed nor charge-sheet was filed in time. It has been argued that investigation was completed on 8.6.2020 and on the same day, charge-sheet was filed. He further submits that once the petitioner can approach the Apex Court by filing his application through email and make a special request for deciding the said application, the same exercise could have been done by the CBI also by making some efforts for filing charge-sheet before the CBI Court or before the Court having competent jurisdiction during the lock down period. Learned counsel further submits that no effort was made by the CBI to file charge-sheet within 60 days and the same was filed after expiry of 119 days, therefore, the detention of the petitioner is totally against the law and he should be set free forthwith. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under no circumstances, limitation period as provided in Cr PC under Section 167 (2) can be enhanced or extended and, if charge-sheet is not filed within the stipulated period as provided, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under no circumstances, limitation period as provided in Cr PC under Section 167 (2) can be enhanced or extended and, if charge-sheet is not filed within the stipulated period as provided, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. He submits that the Court below has completely misunderstood the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No (s).3/2020 (supra). It has been argued that subsequently, vide order dated 19.6.2020, the Apex Court in the case of S Kasi v. State Through The Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District has clarified the position and categorically held that the limitation period as provided under the Statute cannot be enhanced under any circumstances. 7. On the other hand, supporting its action and the impugned order, it has been argued on behalf of the CBI that on account of extraordinary situation prevailing in the country due to COVID-19 pandemic, charge-sheet could not be filed within 60 days. He submits that the CBI Court was completely closed and, therefore, charge-sheet could not be filed within time. According to the CBI, Special Court was ultimately opened on 8.6.2020 and on the same day itself, charge-sheet was filed, meaning thereby the CBI was not at fault and the petitioner cannot take any advantage of not filing the charge-sheet by the CBI within 60 days. He further submits that, the fact that the impugned order was passed in Jail, clearly shows that the CBI Court was closed and after a direction being issued by the District Judge, Ghaziabad, the Presiding Officer of the CBI Court had gone to Jail and then had decided the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC. Counsel for the CBI further submits that the case of S Kasi (supra) is distinguishable with the present case because present is a case where the CBI Court was completely locked and closed, therefore, under no circumstances, charge-sheet could have been filed in time. Counsel for the CBI has also raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to see the provisions of Section 167 of Cr PC, which read as under: "167. Counsel for the CBI has also raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to see the provisions of Section 167 of Cr PC, which read as under: "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. --(1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the Accused to such Magistrate. (2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this Section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the Accused in such custody as such Magistrate things fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the Accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that -- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the Accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the Accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, -- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the Accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this Sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter; (b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this Section unless the Accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage; (c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorize detention in the custody of the police." Explanation I. ... ... ... Explanation II. ... ... ... Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorized to be in the custody of a remand home or recognized social institution. ... ... Explanation II. ... ... ... Provided further that in case of a woman under eighteen years of age, the detention shall be authorized to be in the custody of a remand home or recognized social institution. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate, or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may things fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub-section, shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2): Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be. (3) ... ... ... (4) ... ... ... (5) ... ... ... (6) ... ... ..." 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in Jail since 10.2.2020 and the charge-sheet has been filed on 8.6.2020. (3) ... ... ... (4) ... ... ... (5) ... ... ... (6) ... ... ..." 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner is in Jail since 10.2.2020 and the charge-sheet has been filed on 8.6.2020. It is also not in dispute that on 12.4.2020, the petitioner filed an application under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC and thus, it is an admitted position that the charge-sheet could not be filed within 60 days as provided under the law and the same has been filed after expiry of 119 days. 11. The only question, which arises for consideration of this Court, is as to whether in special circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic, period of 60 days for filing charge-sheet can be enhanced or not and, whether the Court below was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the strength of the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No (s).3/2020 (supra). 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Apex Court, which reads as under: "Item No. 12 Court No. 1 Section PIL-W Supreme Court of India Record of Proceedings Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No (s).3/2020 In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation Date: 23.03.2020. This petition was taken up Suo Motu for hearing today. CORAM: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageshwara Rao Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant By Courts Motion Counsel Present Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of this situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks." 13. In S Kasi (supra), the proposition of law has been discussed and it has been observed by the Apex Court in paras 16, 17, 18, 25 and 26, which read as under: "16. The reason for passing the aforesaid order for extending the period of limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020 for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings are indicated in the order itself. Two reasons, which are decipherable from the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 for passing the order are: - i) The situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 virus and resultant difficulties that are being faced by the litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed. ii) To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court." 17. The limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge). 18. If the interpretation by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is taken to its logical end, due to difficulties and due to present pandemic, Police may also not produce an accused within 24 hours before the Magistrate's Court as contemplated by Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As noted above, the provision of Section 57 as well as Section 167 are supplementary to each other and are the provisions which recognises the Right of Personal Liberty of a person as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 never meant to curtail any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure or any other statute which was enacted to protect the Personal Liberty of a person. The right of prosecution to file a charge sheet even after a period of 60 days/90 days is not barred. The prosecution can very well file a chargesheet after 60 days/90 days but without filing a charge sheet they cannot detain an accused beyond a said period when the accused prays to the court to set him at liberty due to non-filing of the charge sheet within the period prescribed. The prosecution can very well file a chargesheet after 60 days/90 days but without filing a charge sheet they cannot detain an accused beyond a said period when the accused prays to the court to set him at liberty due to non-filing of the charge sheet within the period prescribed. The right of prosecution to carry on investigation and submit a charge sheet is not akin to right of liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 and reflected in other statutes including Section 167, Cr.P.C. Following observations of Madras High Court in the impugned judgment are clearly contrary to the order dated 23.03.2020 of this Court: - "… The Supreme Court order eclipses all provisions prescribing period of limitation until further orders. Undoubtedly, it eclipses the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure also..." 25. We, thus, are of the clear opinion that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment erred in holding that the lockdown announced by the Government of India is akin to the proclamation of Emergency. The view of the learned Single Judge that the restrictions, which have been imposed during period of lockdown by the Government of India should not give right to an accused to pray for grant of default bail even though charge sheet has not been filed within the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law. 26. We, thus, are of the view that neither this Court in its order dated 23.03.2020 can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed. The learned Single Judge committed serious error in reading such restriction in the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020." 14. The above legal position makes it very clear that the Apex Court had never extended or enhanced the time of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, in filing the charge-sheet and, if the same is not filed within 60 days, the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit thereof. 15. The above legal position makes it very clear that the Apex Court had never extended or enhanced the time of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, in filing the charge-sheet and, if the same is not filed within 60 days, the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit thereof. 15. We are not impressed with the argument advanced by the CBI that as the CBI Court was completely closed, charge-sheet could not be filed within 60 days and thus, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the same. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner, we find no substance in the argument of the CBI that the present petition is not maintainable. (See: Rajkumar Bhagchand Jain v. Union of India; Kanu Sanyal v. Distt. Magistrate (1973) 2 SCC 674 ; K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 ; Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277 and Madhu Limaye: In re: AIR 1969 SC 1014 ). 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, nowhere it has been stated that the investigation was completed prior to 8.6.2020, rather the stand of the CBI is that on 8.6.2020, investigation was completed and on the same day, charge-sheet was filed. Further, there is no pleading or documents on record to suggest that any effort was ever made by the CBI to file charge-sheet within 60 days as provided under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC. 17. Here is a case where the petitioner filed his application seeking default bail through e-mail before the District Judge, Ghaziabad and his application was considered and decided, but there is no averment by the CBI that any effort was made by it for filing the charge-sheet during lock down period due to COVID-19 pandemic. Even assuming that the CBI Court was closed, Magistrates of some other Courts were functioning and the District Judge and the Special Judge CBI were available in town to meet such exigency, but there was no effort on the part of the CBI to file charge-sheet. Moreover, all these points have been considered by the Apex Court in S Kasi (supra). 18. Moreover, all these points have been considered by the Apex Court in S Kasi (supra). 18. The Apex Court in Achpal v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 14 SCC 599 , while considering the similar issue, held that the provisions of the Code do not empower any one to extend the period within which the investigation must be completed. If on the expiry of the period aforesaid mentioned, the accused applies for bail and is ready to furnish sureties, an indefeasible right would accrue in his favour. 19. It is not the case of the CBI that during lock down period, no offence had taken place in the country nor any arrest or remand has been made. Therefore, the CBI is not justified in citing the closure of the courts and the general extension of the limitation period. Section 167 (2A) of Cr PC contemplates the situation when the judicial magistrate is not available. In such circumstances for a short period, even the executive magistrate may pass detention orders. In this case, nothing stopped the CBI from formally presenting the report before the stipulated date and getting the initial of the jurisdictional magistrate. 20. Considering all the above aspects of the case in particular, the judgment of the Apex Court in S Kasi (supra), we are of the view that the Special Judge (CBI) has erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167 (2) of Cr PC. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal and he is entitled for default bail. 21. We, accordingly, direct that the petitioner be set free forthwith in respect of FIR No. RC/DST/2018/A/0004 dated 17.1.2018 for the offences under Sections 120-B of IPC and Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (b) & 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station STF, District New Delhi, on fulfilling the conditions to be laid down by the Special Court. 22. Writ petition is allowed. 23. The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. 24. 22. Writ petition is allowed. 23. The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. 24. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.