Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA,
Deepa Singh – Appellant
Versus
State, (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. These appeals under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, (the MCOCA) have been filed by the accused persons in Crime No. 186/2025, Sultanpuri, Police Station aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2025 as per which the trial court dismissed their applications for default bail. The appellants/accused persons as per the aforesaid FIR are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under various Sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act), Section 113 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 3 and 4 of the MCOCA.
2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/accused persons, the impugned order has been passed by the Link Judge in the absence of the Special Judge and hence invalid. Referring to Sections 5 and 6 of the MCOCA, it was argued that it is only the Special Court constituted under the MCOCA that has the power to pass orders relating to offences under the MCOCA, and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was submitted that an Additional Sessions Judge, who has not been appointed in acc
Jurisdiction under MCOCA is restricted to designated Special Courts, and any extension of investigative custody requires adherence to statutory protocols to ensure legality of judicial actions.
In a case where accused is facing investigation for offences under UA(P) Act together with offences under NDPS Act, concerned Sessions Judge, until a Special Court under Section 36 of NDPS Act is con....
The requirements for extending investigation periods under MCOCA were upheld, clarifying that procedural lapses do not invalidate arrests if rights are protected.
Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of NIA Act, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in....
The Special Court designated under the POCSO Act is the sole authority to grant anticipatory bail under S.438 of Cr.P.C., excluding the Sessions Court.
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
Procedural irregularities in the trial under the NDPS Act do not invalidate the proceedings unless they result in a failure of justice.
The Special Court under the SC/ST Act can try IPC offences, and bail applications are maintainable under Cr.P.C. when not charged under SC/ST Act.
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 file....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
