The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory mandate for the Public Prosecutor to independently apply his mind and satisfy himself about the progress of the investigation and justness of the reasons for seeking extension under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act. The judgment also emphasizes the accused's indefeasible right to default bail if the statutory mandate is not complied with.

JUDGMENT :

VINAY JOSHI, J.

1. Heard finally with the consent of both learned counsel.

2. Admit.

3. The appellants have been arrested in Crime No. 242/2023 by Wardha City Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOC Act’). The appellants have impugned herein the order dated 19.05.2023 granting extension of 30 days in filing of the charge-sheet vide Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act, and consequential order dated 23.06.2023, by which the Special Court has declined to grant bail in-default. The learned APP has defended impugned orders by making exhaustive submissions. Both parties have relied on certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Singha h/f Mr. R.K. Tiwari appearing for appellants assailed the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 granting 30 days extension mainly on two counts. Firstly, he claimed that extension was granted by the Special Court without application of mind. The extension was in contravention with the proviso to Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOC Act. Though extension is to be granted only on the report of Public Prosecutor, however the extension was granted on the application of the Investigating Officer which is totally illegal. Secondly, without giving an opportunity to the accused, extension application was hastily allowed on the very day, which has deprived appellants’ from resisting and claiming bail in-default.

5. Mr. Doifode, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent/State strongly opposed, thereby claiming that extension application dated 19.05.2023 was very much signed by the Public Prosecutor and thus, it cannot be termed that it was sought by the Investigating Officer. He would submit that the impugned order of extension dated 19.05.2023 was not challenged by the appellants, but they have filed regular bail application and thus, it is not open for them to raise a challenge after rejection of regular bail dated 21.06.2023. On the point of non-granting right of hearing, it has been submitted that for the said purpose, the matter can be remanded to the Trial Court for affording an opportunity and for fresh adjudication.

6. For the sake of convenience, material dates are stated in tabular form as below:

7. With the assistance of both sides, we have gone through the record made available for our perusal. Undisputedly, the initial period of 90 days stood expired on 01.06.2023 and before that on 19.05.2023, the first extension of 30 days was granted. There is no dispute that the appellants have applied for default bail on 21.06.2023, whilst the charge-sheet has been filed on 28.06.2023. in other words default bail has been claimed prior to the filing of charge-sheet. In the wake of above position, the principal issue falls for consideration is whether grant of extension dated 19.05.2023 u