-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.777 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant. V/s. Rakesh Subhash Surve. ... Respondent. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P.for the State. Mr. Kanishk Jayant for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2008. : 28TH APRIL, 2008. : 28TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is an appeal preferred under Section 12 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,1999 referred to as MCOCA Act. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent that the appeal would not lie. Reliance was placed on an order of this Court dated 17th January 2008 in Criminal Appeal No.778 of 2007 and a subsequent order in another appeal by a Hon’ble Bench in Criminal Appeal No.585 of 2007 dated 1st February 2008. 2. We have placed the matter for hearing and our attention has been invited by the learned A.P.P. to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Usmanbhai Usmanbhai Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Dawoodbhai Dawoodbhai Memon Memon Memon & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat (1988) & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat (1988) & Ors. V/s. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271. SCC 271. SCC 271. In that case the Supreme Court has considered whether an appeal would lie against an -:2:- order granting of bail under the provision of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). In that case the issue as to whether an order passed on a bail application is an interim order in the context of final order was under consideration. Considering the provision of Section 19(1) of TADA, the Supreme Court after considering earlier judgments, held that an order granting bail does not finally dispose of the prosecution, was pleased to hold that it is an interlocutory order. That judgment has subsequently been followed in Amina Ahmed Dossa & Ors. Amina Ahmed Dossa & Ors. Amina Ahmed Dossa & Ors. V/s. V/s. V/s. State of Maharashtra (2001) 2 SCC 675 State of Maharashtra (2001) 2 SCC 675 State of Maharashtra (2001) 2 SCC 675. In that judgment the issue was not of bail but to an order of attaching property. It was also held in that matter that it would be an interim order against which an appeal would not lie. 3. Under the provisions of MCOCA, Act an appeal lies under Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(1) reads as under :- " Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Special Court to the High Court." -:3:- 4. Considering that the expressed interlocutory order is used in connection with the judgment, sentence or order, in our opinion, an order granting bail or refusing bail will be an interlocutory order, considering the judgment in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors (Supra). Ors (Supra). Ors (Supra). 5. As the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent is upheld the Appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal will not come in the way of the State seeking any remedy which otherwise it may have in law. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)