Accused was arrested on 21/02/2020 and after judicial custody of 73 days bail application was submitted u/s 167(ii) of Cr.P.C which was rejected on the basis of SC judgement dated 23/03/2020 saying that the time bound provisions eclipses until further orders and hence, sec 167(2) also eclipses. 

But on 8/05/2020, in the case Settu v. The state (Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 5291of 2020, Madras HC was of the view that the SC order dated 23/03/2020 does not apply on Sec 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Now the appeal was filed against the dismissal of bail application in Crl OP (MD) No. 5296 of 2020.

Whether a coordinate Bench can overturn the decision taken by a larger Bench? What is the quantum of the decision taken by Learned Single Judge of the SC on 23/03/202 , which put eclipses on the time period prescribing legislations to reduce the difficulties of the Litigants ? 

Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453

It was held that the code doesn’t empower anyone to increase the time limit for completion of investigation by police. Sec 57 of Cr.P.C puts an obligation on police officers to bring an accused in front of a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and it is supplementary to section 167.

SC suo moto took cognizance, in W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020 considering the spread of COVID and the difficulties which may be faced by litigants due to it. Litigants might not be able to file suit/ application / petition or other legal proceedings within the time period prescribed by various legislations and to stop litigants from physically appearing in courts certain decisions were taken on 23/03/2020.  

State of Punjab and Anr. V. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd and Anr,(2004) 11 SCC 26

It was held that according to Judicial Discipline, if one coordinate Bench has a different view than another coordinate bench then the case should be referred to the larger bench.

It was also observed that only the larger bench has jurisdiction to overturn the decision taken by the coordinate bench.

Appeal was allowed and the earlier decision taken by the bench of a single Judge was set aside. Appellant was released on default bail by accepting a bond of rs 10,000 signed by 2 sureties.