1 APPLN 3827 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3827 OF 2010. Mr. Ashok Shankar Kharat .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Pankaj Kavale, for the Applicant. Mrs P. P. Shinde, APP for the respondent state. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 4th October, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for bail by default. The applicant was arrested on 4.4.2010 in connection with Crime No. I-65 of 2010, registered with Rabale Police Station, Thane. The applicant was remanded from time to time to Police and Judicial custody. On 30th April, 2010, provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short called as “MCOC Act”), were applied and Crime No.I 351 of 2010, was registered with Turbhe Police Station. On 6th April, 2010 the applicant was produced before the Special Judge, M.C.O.C. Court at Thane and was remanded to Police Custody till 15th April,2010 and thereafter to Judicial Custody. On 3rd May,2010 an application for extension of time to file charge sheet was sought u/s 21 of the M.C.O.C. Act. Intimation of this application was not 2 APPLN 3827 OF 2010.sxw given to the applicant. Learned Judge granted extension of time to file chargesheet by 60 days. On 15th May,2010, applicant filed an application u/s 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code r/w section 21(4) of the MCOC Act for bail since the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days from the date of his arrest. The hearing of the application for bail was adjourned from time to time. On 2nd July, 2010, investigating machinery sought further extension of time to file chargesheet and further extension of 3l days was granted. It was stated that the investigating machinery had attempted to serve an intimation on the applicant who was lodged in Thane Central Prison, but the applicant had refused to receive the intimation. The applicant contested this claim. He has, therefore, sought enlargement on bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal procedure, read with section 2l(2) of the MCOC Act. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the applicant had not questioned grant of extension of time on 3rd May,2010, he must be taken to have acquiesced and in any case when extension was granted on 2.7.2010, an intimation had already been given to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on judgment of this Court, in case of Mr. Bhagyesh @ Bablu Nitin 3 APPLN 3827 OF 2010.sxw Shah -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 ALL MR (CRI)1187, which in turn relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hitendra Thakur and ors -vs- State of Maharashtra, and ors, reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1087, on the question of grant of extension of time without notice to the accused. He also relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2007, decided on 5.7.2007, where too it has been observed that the extension of time cannot be granted without giving proper notice to the detenues to effectively oppose such extension. 5. In view of these judgments, since in this case extension had been sought and granted on the first occasion i.e.3.5.2010 without giving intimation to the applicant, that extension itself must be held to be improper. As far as second extension is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that intimation, if any, to be served upon the applicant should have been sent to the Jailor and there is no question of applicant refusing any such intimation. In view of this, it is difficult to believe that intimation was given to the applicant or refused by him while seeking second extension. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in case of Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and anr -vs- State of 4 APPLN 3827 OF 2010.sxw Maharashtra, reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3110 and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya –vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2001 ALL MR MR (CRI) 713 that the right of accused to get bail u/s 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is indefeasible when investigation is not completed within the specified period. In Uday Mohanlal Acharya’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that subsequent filing of charge sheet would not frustrate the indefeasible right of accused to be released on bail. 7. In view of this the accused be released on bail on his furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall attend the concerned police station on first and third Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till the trial is over. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)