MCOCA| Extended Period For Completion Of Investigation Terminates On The Day Competent Authority Declines To Grant Sanction: Bombay HC Grants Default Bail
The Bombay High Court held that extended period for completion of investigation terminates on the day the competent authority declines to grant sanction under Section 21(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA)
The Court noted that detention beyond a period of 90 days pursuant to the lawful order passed by a Special Court cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorized. However, once the competent authority refuses to grant sanction for prosecution, the justification for continued detention by invoking Section 21(2) of the MCOCA “may become incongruous.”
A Single Bench of Justice N. J. Jamadar observed, “The previous sanction of the competent authority is thus a jurisdictional condition. If the jurisdictional condition is not fulfilled, the extension which was granted by the Special Court, in the wake of the invocation of the provisions contained in MCOC Act, 1999, must cease to operate as the provisions contained in Section 21(2) of the Act, 1999 would itself cease to have any application thence.”
Advocate Pankaj More represented the applicants, while APP Ranjana D. Humane appeared for the respondent.
During the investigation, offences under MCOCA were invoked with the approval of the competent authority. After the case was transferred to the Special Court after the invocation of MCOCA, an extension for investigation was granted. However, when the competent authority refused MCOCA sanction, the proceedings were remitted to the Magistrate. Subsequently, the applicants sought default bail, but it was denied by the Magistrate on the ground that on the day the chargesheet was lodged by the Investigating Officer, the application for default bail had not been decided.
In light of the said rejection, the High Court held, “Such approach is plainly in dissonance with the avowed object of incorporating indefeasible right of an accused to be enlarged on bail in the event of default on the part of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within the statutorily mandated period.”
The Court explained that once the period of detention expired, without charge-sheet having been lodged, and the accused “manifested the intent to avail the right” by filing a bail application, “no subterfuge to defeat the indefeasible right can be countenanced.”
When the Special Court extended the time and the chargesheet was lodged within the extended period, there cannot be an occasion for invocation of the provision conferring the right to default bail. “If the chargesheet is not lodged within the extended period, there ought not to be any obfuscation as to the entitlement to the default bail,” the Court explained.
“The correct approach which is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, would be to hold that once the competent authority declines to grant sanction under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1999, the extended period for completion of investigation, would terminate on the day the competent authority declines to grant sanction and on the next day, the right to seek default bail, in the event chargesheet is not filed, accrues to the accused,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court granted the applicants bail since they had applied for the bail one day before the charge sheet was lodged against them.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Dinesh Ganesh Indre & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:14690)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocates Pankaj More, Nitin Kamble and Sukrut Mhatre
Respondent: APP Ranjana D. Humane