The court reaffirmed that an accused’s right to default bail is contingent on proper legal procedures being followed; improper extensions can revive these rights until the formal charge-sheet is filed.

JUDGMENT :

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judgeand Special Judge, Latur whereby extension of 90 days sought by the Investigation Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Latur, has been granted for completing further investigation and filing charge-sheet. However, during pendency of this appeal, by carrying out the amendment, the appellant also prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order below Exh.1 dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, whereby default bail application filed by the appellant, was rejected.

2. Facts leading to the present appeal, are as under :

The present appellant, who is the original accused No.3, was arrested on 24.04.2025 alongwith accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.0087/2025 dated 12.03.2025 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 308(5), 311, 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alongwith Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 3 (1) (2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1099 (“MCOC Act” for short), added subsequently. The present respondent No.5 i.e. the Police Inspector of Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur submitted an application under Section 23(1) (a) of MCOC Act to respondent No.2 therebyseeking prior approval for invoking Sections 3(1)(2), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. Under the order dated 09.04.2025, sanction was approved for invoking the aforesaid sections of MCOC Act. Thereafter on 28.05.2025 a communication was made to the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the aforesaid Investigating Officer i.e. SDPO, Latur for extension of 90 days time for completing further investigation as it could not be completed within earlier period of 90 days, Thereafter vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025, the learned Special Judge, Latur without extending any opportunity to the petitioner, granted such extension.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Karpe for the appellant submitted that the learned Special Judge has ignored the provision of MCOC Act while granting further extension of 90 days for completing the investigation under impugned order dated 29.05.2025. He pointed out that the application for extension of time was not filed by the Public Prosecutor, but it was in fact filed by the Investigating Officer and it is only shown to be filed through APP, without his signature. According to him, no notice of the said application for extension was given to the appellant, violating the principle of natural justice. The proviso appended to Section 21 (2) of MCOC Act was not at all followed. Even there was no application of mind through the Prosecutor for submitting such application for extension for carrying out the investigation. He pointed out that since the order of extension is illegal, the appellant was definitely entitled for default bail as the charge-sheet could not be filed within the period of 90 days, and therefore the order of rejecting the application for default bail filed by the appellant, is illegal. In addition to submissions at bar, learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the following judgments:

(i) Sachin Namdeo Rathod vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2018 (Bombay High Court)

(ii) Pahadiya Tulshiram Champala and others vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 831 of 2017 (Bombay High Court)

(iii) Darshan Subhash Nandagawali vs