The requirements for extending investigation periods under MCOCA were upheld, clarifying that procedural lapses do not invalidate arrests if rights are protected.

JUDGMENT :

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 629/2024, registered on 07.12.2024 at Police Station Farsh Bazar, Delhi (now being investigated by the Special Cell of Delhi Police), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103 (1)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter " BNS ‟] read with Sections 25 /27 of the Arms Act, 1959 . He was arrested in relation to the present case on 16.02.2025. Later, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [hereafter "MCOCA‟] were invoked in the present case, and the petitioner‟s judicial remand was obtained.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the learned ASJ-03/Special Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, vide which the petitioner‟s application for grant of default bail was dismissed. He further seeks to assail the order dated 13.06.2025, passed by the learned Vacation Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, extending the period of investigation as enabled underSection 21 (2)(b) of MCOCA and also remanding the petitioner.

3. The premise on which the aforesaid reliefs have been sought is as follows – that while the general rule entitles an accused to default bail if the investigation is not completed within a period of sixty or ninety days (as the case maybe), MCOCA, being a special legislation, prescribes a default period of ninety days and empowers the Special Court to extend this period up to one hundred eighty days, provided the Public Prosecutor submits a report justifying the need for such extension. The case set up by the petitioner, and as canvassed by the learned senior counsel appearing on his behalf, is essentially that theextension of the period of investigation and the consequential remand of the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Vacation Judge is legally untenable, as Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh – the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) who had appeared on the said date before the learned Vacation Judge – was not a validly appointed SPP under Section 8 of MCOCA who could have submitted his report for seeking such extension of period of investigation and petitioner‟s custody. It is thus contended that the petitioner was entitled to default bail, which came to be arbitrarily denied by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 08.07.2025.

4. The writ petition is strongly contested by the respondent–State, which has sought to justify the legality and propriety of the impugned orders and has opposed the prayer for grant of default bail to the petitioner.

5. Before delving into the respective submissions and contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to first set out the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present case.

FACTUAL BACKDROP

6. The present case arises out of a shooting incident that occurred on the morning of 07.12.2024. At around 08:25 AM, one Sunil Jain was shot dead near the Vishwas Nagar red light while returning home on a Scooty with his friend, Sumit Kumar Nahata, following their routine walk. Two unidentified individuals on a blue-coloured motorcycle had allegedly fired multiple rounds at Sunil Jain and fled.The present FIR was registered at P.S. Farsh Bazar, Delhi. The investigation was initially taken over by the Special Cell (NDR) and subsequently transferred to the Counter Intelligence Cell on 31.12.2024. During investigation, the assailants were identified as Naveen Kasana and Mukesh Kumar @ Sachin @ Golu, both having a serious criminal history. It was revealed that the murder was a case of mistaken identity arising from an ongoing gang rivalry involving Yogesh Sharma @ Yogi and the Hasim @ Baba gang, in retaliation for the earlier killings of Akash Sharma @ Chotu and Rishabh. Sunil Jain, who bore a resemblance to the intended target‟s father, was mistakenly g