BA-734-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.734 OF 2011 Shekhar Suresh Dagle ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra, Thru' Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane ... Respondent Mr. Pankaj Kavale for the Applicant. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 6 TH JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The Applicant is one of the Accused – the Accused No.1 – in C.R. No.I-206 of 2010 registered at Vartak Nagar Police Station, Thane. 3. The Applicant was arrested on 17th June, 2010, and is in custody since then. The present application for bail has been made on the ground that the Applicant was entitled to be released on bail statutorily, and that his application for bail was wrongly rejected by the Special Court. 4. The relevant dates and facts are as under : . The Applicant was arrested on 17th June, 2010. The said C.R. is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 392 IPC, 328 IPC, 506 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the Applicant and one more accused on 7th September, 2010. Later, prior approval for registering a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act (MCOC Act), as contemplated BA-734-11.sxw 2 Dixit u/s. 23(1) of the said Act, was obtained and the case in respect of offences punishable under the MCOC Act was registered. Pursuant to the application under the MCOC Act, the Applicant and even the other accused were re-arrested on 5th January, 2011. The Applicant was remanded into custody from time to time. On 6th April, 2011, the Applicant and the other accused made an application to the Special Court for bail, on the ground that they were entitled to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the period of 90 days was over and the investigation had not been completed. The learned Judge of the Special Court rejected the said application by his order dated 20th April, 2011. 5. Admittedly, no charge-sheet had been filed with respect to the offences punishable under the MCOC Act till that date. Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code mandates the release of an accused person, if the investigation would not be completed within the period stipulated by that proviso. The detention of an accused cannot be authorised beyond the period provided in the said proviso. 6. Under Section 21 of the MCOC Act, however, such period can be extended. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the MCOC Act, reads as under : " Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Special Court shall extend the said period upto one hundred and eighty days, on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days." 7. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the Special Court had not extended the said period of 90 days. In fact, no application for detention of the accused persons beyond the period of 90 days had been made by the Public BA-734-11.sxw 3 Dixit Prosecutor at all. Once this was so, the Applicant was entitled to be released on bail. 8. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Special Judge. The reasoning and approach of the learned Judge in the matter cannot be approved. 9. Since the investigation was not complete, even after the expiry of a period of 90 days from the date on which the Applicant was produced before the Court and detained in custody, his further detention, without granting bail, could not have been authorized. The Applicant was entitled to be released on bail, in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code. 10. Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP, submits that now, i.e on 28th June, 2011, a charge-sheet has been filed with respect to the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. In my opinion, merely because the charge-sheet has now been filed, the right accrued to the Applicant to get released on bail cannot be defeated. The Applicant had rightly asked for his release on bail before the Special Court and his prayer was wrongly turned down by the learned Special Judge. The Applicant is, therefore, entitled to be released on bail. 11. The Bail Application is allowed. 12. The Applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.75,000/-, with one surety in like amount, on the condition to attend the Crime Branch, Wagle Estate Unit, Thane and make himself available for investigation/interrogation, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]