IMPORTANT POINT
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a fundamental right linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and its applicability to subsequent arrestees after a chargesheet has been filed requires careful judicial interpretation.

ORDER

N.J.Jamadar, J. - The Applicant who is arraigned in C.R.No.244 of 2018 registered with Pandharpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 303, 201, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(i) (ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act, 1999), has preferred this application to enlarge him on bail on the ground that there was default in completing the investigation and lodging the chargesheet qua the applicant within the period stipulated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) in its modified application to the offences punishable under the MCOC Act, 1999.

2. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant and the co-accused is that Gopal Bajirao Ankushrao, accused No.18, is the leader of an organized crime syndicate, known as 'Sirji' Gang, and in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy on 18 March 2018, 26 accused and a child in conflict with law, who were members of the said organized crime syndicate committed murder of Sandeep Pawar, the then Municipal Counsellor, by shooting him and also assaulting him by means of deadly weapons, at Shriram Bhojnalaya, Station Road, Pandharpur.

3. As the applicant seeks default bail, a detailed reference to the facts may not be warranted beyond the dates and events which bear upon the entitlement for default bail. FIR was registered on 19 March 2018. On 15 September 2018, chargesheet was lodged against the co-accused wherein the applicant was arraigned as accused No.25 and shown absconding. Chargesheet was purportedly lodged by invoking the provisions contained in Section 299 of the Code. The applicant came to be subsequently arrested on 28 August 2021. He was produced before the Special Court, MCOCA on 29 August 2021. The 180 days period for which the detention was authorized under the provisions of Section 167(2), as modified by Section 21 of the MCOC Act, 1999 in its application to the offence under the MCOC Act, 1999, was over on 24 February 2022.

4. On 28 February 2022, the applicant filed an application for default bail.

Subsequently, on the very day, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant purportedly under Section 173(8) of the Code.

5. The learned Special Judge MCOC, Pandharpur, was persuaded to reject the application by an order dated 11 March 2022 holding, inter alia, that since the chargesheet was submitted against the applicant and the other co-accused on 15 September 2018 and post arrest of the applicant, only additional evidence came to be filed in the form of supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) of the Code, the application for default bail was not tenable. It was, inter alia, observed that the investigation for the offences punishable under the MCOC Act, 1999, was not a new investigation, but only further investigation in respect of the offences initially registered while lodging the FIR. Since the chargesheet was already filed on 15 September 2018 and the cognizance of the offences was already taken by the Special Court (MCOCA), no indefeasible right accrued to the accused under Section 167(2) of the Code, though the period of 180 days had elapsed since the date of remand of the applicant, post arrest on 28 August 2021.

6. I have heard Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the Applicant, and Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State at some length.

7. At the outset, Mr. Ponda, submitted that there are two conflicting decisions, both rendered by the learned Single Judges of this Court. In the case of Anil Somdatta Nagpal and Lalit V/s. The State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cri.L.J. 1307, a learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C.Dharmadhikari) has taken a view that once a chargesheet is lodged under Section 173(2) of the Code and the cognizance of the offence has been taken, the subsequent arrest of an accused do