Ajit Bharihoke, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10th May, 2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in case FIR No. 538/2010, P.S. Anand Vihar titled "State v. Dharamvir Singh and Anr." whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and declined to admit him on bail.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner along with his co-accused was arrested on 15.12.2010 in case FIR No. 538/2010 P.S. Anand Vihar for allegedly having committed offences under IPC and the Arms Act. He was produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody.

3. During investigation, involvement of the petitioner in 31 other criminal cases was revealed. Thus, on 24.01.2011, Assistant Commissioner of Police sent a proposal for invoking MCOCA against the petitioner. On 04.02.2011, requisite sanction under Section 23(1)(a) of MCOCA for invoking Section 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (as extended to NCT of Delhi) against the petitioner and investigation by Shri Prem Singh Hooda, ACP, Vivek Vihar was accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range.

4. On 08.02.2011, the petitioner moved a bail application seeking his release on bail in case FIR No. 538/2010. On 10.02.2011, learned APP informed learned Additional Sessions Judge about invoking of MCOCA against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner withdrew his bail application.

5. Investigating agency failed to file charge sheet against the petitioner within 60 days of his arrest in the case, as such, on the application of the petitioner seeking bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC proviso (a) (ii), learned M.M. vide order dated 26.03.2011 directed release of the petitioner on bail.

6. However, despite of the bail order, the jail authorities did not release him because of production warrants issued by the Special Court, MCOCA on the application moved by the prosecution, intimating that Section 3(2) and Section 3(4) MCOCA has been added in FIR No. 538/2010 P.S. Anand Vihar.

7. Since supplementary charge sheet pertaining to the offences under Section 3(2) and 3(4) MCOCA was not filed within 90 days of his arrest, the petitioner moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 21 of MCOCA before the Special Court MCOCA, seeking his release on bail. Bail application under Section 167(2) was dismissed on 10.05.2011 by the learned Special Judge, taking a view that period of detention of the petitioner was to be computed from 31.03.2011 when the petitioner was formally arrested for the offence under MCOCA on being produced before the Special Court pursuant to the production warrants issued on 28.03.2011.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Judge, MCOCA has committed a grave error in law in holding that instead of the actual date of arrest of the petitioner, date of his formal arrest for the offence under MCOCA would be relevant for computing the period of detention of the petitioner for the purpose of Section 167(2) proviso (a) as modified by Section 21 MCOCA. In support of this contention, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Bharti Chandmal Varma, AIR 2002 SC 285.

9. Learned APP, on the contrary, has pressed for dismissal of revision petition and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court MCOCA has rightly rejected the bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. as being premature. He submitted that initially the FIR No. 538/2010 was registered for offences of Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Only during the course of investigation, it came to the knowledge of the investigating agency that the petitioner was involved in 31 other criminal cases, including cases of organised crime. Thus, because of the restriction/safeguard pr