The right to apply for default bail is lost once the charge-sheet is filed, and such right does not revive only because further investigation is pending.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. In this appeal, filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘Atrocity Act’) read with Section 439 and 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) challenge is to the order dated 30.08.2021 whereby the learned Special Judge rejected the application made by the appellants for default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The accused were arrested on 31.05.2021 in crime, bearing No. 509 of 2021, registered at Badnera Police Station, District Amravati, for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 364, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as ‘the IPC’) read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants-Akash More and Nitesh Pital went to the house of a deceased-Bacchu. They took him with them under the pretext of joining them to drink liquor. They drunk liquor. The appellants as per the case of the prosecution, thereafter, committed murder of the Bacchu.

3. In the course of the investigation, the investigating officer came across the evidence that the appellant-Prashant alias Sonu Chavre is a gang leader. He has been committing offences with other accused and other persons. Therefore, the investigating officer found that the appellants could be prosecuted for commission of an offences under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (herein after referred to as ‘MCOC Act’). As such the investigating officer, sought the permission of the Police Commissioner, Amravati to apply these offences in the registered crime against the appellants. The Commissioner granted approval vide order dated 13.08.2021.

4. The appellants on 30.08.2021 made an application for bail as per the provisions of Section 167(2) proviso (a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. It is the case of the appellants that the investigation in the crime commenced and on 30.05.2021 they were arrested. They were produced before the Magistrate on 31.05.2021. Initially the provisions of MCOC Act were not invoked. The same came to be added on 13.08.2021. The Special Public Prosecutor made an application on 20.08.2021 seeking extension of the detention period of the appellants upto 180 days on the ground that by that time the investigation could not be completed. The said application was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 27.08.2021. It is stated that on 27.08.2021 itself the investigating officer filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Atrocity Act. The request was made to the Court in the said charge-sheet for conducting further investigation with liberty to file further charge-sheet for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. On 30.08.2021 the appellants made an application for bail under Section 167(2). It is the case of the appellants that in order to overcome the order dated 27.08.2021, rejecting their application for extension of detention period, the investigating officer hurriedly filed incomplete and defective charge-sheet. No charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act. Since the permission was rejected for further detention up to 180 days the right to be released on bail accrued in favour of the appellants. Therefore, they were, entitled to be released on bail by invoking the provisions of Section 167(2) (a)(i) of the Cr.P.C.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor in charge of the case filed the reply and opposed the application. It is the case of the prosecution that the investigation for the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Maharashtra Police Act and the Atrocity Act was complete. The period of 90 days would have expired