The sufficiency of the prosecutor's application as a report for seeking an extension of time for investigation and the entitlement of the appellant to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant-Original Accused No. 3 has set out prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) as under:-

“(B) The Appellant may kindly be enlarged on bail in connection with the Crime No.92/2020 lodged at Ramtirth Police Station, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded for the offence punishable U/sec. 394, 397 of I.P.C. and section 3/25 of Arms Act and U/sec.3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act.

(C) By and order of this Hon’ble Court, kindly quashed and set aside the Order dated 02.09.2020 (Exhibit-F) passed by the learned Special Court, Biloli thereby granting extension of time in view of provisions of Section 21(b) of MCOC Act r/w Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

(D) By and order of this Hon’ble Court, kindly quashed and set aside the order dated 10.09.2020 (Exhibit-G) passed by the learned Special Court, Biloli in connection with Crime No.92/2020 lodged at Ramtirth Police Station Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded for the offence punishable U/sec. 394, 397 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act and U/sec.3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act and consequently the application may kindly be allowed and the appellant be enlarged on bail by putting appropriate conditions and for that purpose necessary orders be passed.”

2. We have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP on behalf of the State, who has vehemently contended that this appeal deserves to be rejected. With the assistance of the learned Advocate, we have gone through the appeal paper book.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon following judgments:-

(i) Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2772]

(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Rahul Ramchandra Taru [2011 All.M.R.(Cri) 2100]

(iii) Union of India through C.B.I. v. Nirala Yadav alias Raja Ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav [AIR 2014 SC 3036]

(iv) Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2015) 7 SCC 440]

(v) Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2017 SC (Supp) 40]

(vi) Sachin Ramdeo Rathod and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra [2019 ALL.M.R.(Cri) 801]

(vii) State of Mahrashtra and Ors. Vs. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal & Anr. [(2007) 4 SCC 171]

(viii) Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam [AIR 2017 SC 3948]

4. It is undisputed that the appellant is original accused No.3 in FIR bearing Crime No. 0092 of 2020 dated 02-06-2020 lodged at the Ramtirth Police Station, Biloli, Dist. Nanded for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. He was arrested on 02-06-2020. The Special Inspector General of Police, Nanded Range granted approval for applying the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as “MCOC Act”). On 30-07-2020 the provisions under Section (3)(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act were added in the FIR.

5. On 31-08-2020, the 90 days period for filing of the charge-sheet, in view of the arrest of the appellant on 02-06-2020, expired. On 02-09-2020, the Investigating Officer made an application under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act to the Special Court seeking extension of time for tendering the charge-sheet. The learned Court perused the application of the prosecutor, report of the Investigating Officer and say of accused No.4 and heard the parties at length. The appellant herein contends that he (Accused No.3) was not served with notice and was not heard.

6. In the above backdrop, the trial Court has allowed the application dated 02.09.2020 and has extended the time for filing the charge-sheet against accused nos. 3 & 4, till 30.09.2020 (extension of 30 days). The appellant moved an application on 10.09.2020 praying for default bail in view of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. By the impugned order dated 10.09.2020, the said application has been rejected by the Special Court. It was concluded that the advocate representing accused no. 4, was also representing accused no. 3 and had entered a Vakalatnama o