LexMUSTAQ AHMED MOHAMMED ISAK AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 465 ~- MUSTAQ AHMED MOHAMMED ISAK AND ORS. A V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 967-968 of 2009) MAY 8, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] • Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999: Section 21 - lnterpretatiol]_ of - Held: There is nothing in c the language of second proviso inserted in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by Section 21(2) of the Act to indicate that power of extension can be exercised only once - Power of remand - Special Court can exercise power from time to time - However, the total period for filing charge-sheet/cha/Ian cannot D exceed 180 days - On facts of the case, held the prosecution having filed the charge sheet, application for bail filed on default ground rightly rejected by the courts below. The appellants were arrested on 13.5.2006 on charges punishable under the Maharashtra Control of E Organised Crime Act, 1999. The period of initial 90 days .. to complete the investigation was to expire on 6.8.2006 , and extention was sought on 3.8.2006. Extension of 15 days was granted till 21.8.2006 by the Special Court. On 21.8.2006 further extension of time was sought for and F granted till 4.9.2006 on which date the charge sheet was filed. Bail application was filed on default of the Prosecution in filing the charge sheet within the specified period of 90 days. The Special Court rejected the Bail ,. application. On appeal, the High Court held that the G impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeals, the Court 465 H 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. There is nothing in the language of second proviso inserted in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by Section 21 (2) of the Maharashtra Contro: of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) to indicate that the power of extension can be exercised only once as contended by B the appellants. [Para 15] [487-8] 1.2. The provisions of Section 21 of MCOC Act must be read in the light of Section 167 Cr.P.C. which itself indicates that power of remand has to be exercised from C time to time and this clearly dispels any doubt as regard the true effect of the second proviso added in Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by Section 21 (2) of the MCOC Act, 1999. The only possible interpretation of the said proviso is that the Special Court can exercise power under the said proviso from time to time however, the total period for filing D charge sheet/challan cannot exceed 180 days.[Para 16] (487-D-E] 1.3. In the instant case, appellants were arrested on 13.5.2006, the first extension was granted on 7.8.2006 for E a period of 15 days i.e. upto 21.8.2006 and the second extension was granted on 21.8.2006 for a period of 15 days i.e. upto 4.9.2006 and the charge sheet has been filed on 4.9.2006. The application for bail on the default ground came to be filed for the first time on 4.9.2006 i.e. F the date on which the charge sheet was submitted, which is Bail Application No.32 of 2006. Prior to this, there was no application under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOC Act, 1999 r/w Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on default ground. Affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police specifically states that G such an application on a default ground was made for the first time on 4.9.2006 and not on 18.8.2006 as incorrectly contended by the appellants. Appellants are contending that the appeal filed by them on 18.8.2006 should be considered as their application for bail. The H appeal filed in High Court was challenging the order MUSTAQ AHMED MOHAMMED ISAK AND ORS. v. 467 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ·~ dated 7.8.2006 of Special Court granting extension till A 21.8.2006 and on 21.8.2006 extension was granted till 4.9.2006. The appeal filed on 18.8.2006 cannot be considered as application for bail. Even if it is treated an application for bail the same was not tenable on default groun~ as the Special Court extended the period on B 7.8.2006 till 21.8.2006 and further extended the period on 21.8.2006 till 4.9.2006. On 4.9.2006 the charge sheet has been filed and on that day itself, the application for _bail was filed by the appellants on default ground and therefore, the application for bail was rightly rejected by c the courts below. [Paras 17 and 18] [487-F-H; 488-A-D] Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 602; Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1377 D and S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.