1. The applicant, who is an accused in C.R. No. 60/2013 registered at R.A. Kidwai Marg Police Station, Mumbai, by this application, prays for bail. According to the applicant, the investigation was not completed within the period prescribed by clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), but that, he was still not released on bail, thereby defeating the right to be released on bail, that had accrued to him. The applicant, therefore, is seeking bail only on the ground that effect should be given to the right that had accrued in his favour of being released on bail.

2. Since this is the only contention and since no arguments on the merits of the allegations levelled against the applicant and the case against him have been advanced, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case. What, however, needs to be observed is that the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (M.C.O.C. Act) have been applied to the case against the applicant.

3. The details of the relevant happenings, and more particularly, the dates thereof are as follows:-

(i) The applicant was arrested in the said C.R. No.60/2013 on 07.03.2013. He was produced before the Magistrate on 08.03.2013 and was remanded into the police custody.

(ii) The applicant was thereafter being remanded into the custody from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 (2) of the Code.

(iii) On 11.04.2013, the Competent Authority granted prior approval as contemplated under Section 23(1)(a) of the M.C.O.C. Act to apply the provisions of the said Act to the present case.

(iv) On 24.04.2013, the applicant (and other co-accused) were produced before the learned Judge of the Special Court for Greater Mumbai constituted under the M.C.O.C. Act. Initially, the applicant was remanded into police custody and later on into judicial custody. He was being remanded into custody from time to time.

(v) On 30.05.2013, the Public Prosecutor, Incharge of the case filed an application purportedly under Section 21(2)(b) of the M.C.O.C. Act praying for extension of time ‘for filing the final report beyond the period of 90 days’.

(vi) On notice of the application for extension of time, the applicant on 03.06.2013 through his Advocate filed a reply opposing the application for extension of time.

(vii) On 05.06.2013 on which date the applicant had undergone detention for a period of 90 days in custody, the learned Judge of the Special Court allowed the application filed by the Public Prosecutor and extended the time for filing the final report till 20.06.2013.

(viii) On 12.06.2013, the applicant applied for bail by referring to the provisions of Section 167 of the Code.

(ix) On 19.06.2013, the Public Prosecutor made an application for further extension of the time. The copy thereof however could not be served upon the applicant in the prison.

(x) On 21.06.2013, the learned Judge of the Special Court extended the period further till 5th July, 2013.

4. The substance of the contentions advanced by the applicant is that the maximum statutory period during which his detention in custody pending investigation could be authorized, expired on 20.06.2013, and that therefore, on 21st June, 2013, the applicant was entitled to be released, mandatorily, on bail, in view of the provisions of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code read with Section 21(2)(b) of the M.C.O.C. Act.

5. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, it was thought proper to call for certain record from the Special Court. Accordingly, relevant record viz:-

(i) the remand applications relating to the applicant filed before the Special Court from time to time, (ii) the applications seeking extension of period authorizing detention pending investigation, (iii) the application for bail filed by the applicant (iv) the Roznama of the Special Court of the dates 19.06.2013, 20