Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6663
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL LAXMAN PANSAREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. NERLIKAR
MOHSIN NASIR SHEIKH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. – Respondent
APEAL/23/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay Naik, Aniruddha Jaltare
For the Respondents: S. S. Doifode
Extensions for filing charge-sheets under MCOCA require a Public Prosecutor's independent application of mind, showing investigation progress and specific detention reasons. If these mandatory conditions are unmet, the right to default bail is indefeasible and not extinguished by a subsequent charge-sheet once the accused has applied for bail.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Section 21(2)(b) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 187(2)(i) - Extension of time for filing charge-sheet - For an extension beyond 90 days, three mandatory conditions must be satisfied: (i) a report from the Public Prosecutor, (ii) an indication of the progress of investigation, and (iii) specific reasons for the detention of the accused - The Public Prosecutor is a statutory authority and not a mere post office or forwarding agency for the investigating agency; an independent application of mind is mandatory to ensure that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not curtailed arbitrarily. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Default Bail - Once an accused applies for bail upon the expiry of the statutory period for filing a charge-sheet, the right to be released on default bail becomes indefeasible - This right remains enforceable notwithstanding the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet or a report seeking extension of time if the application for bail was already pending or had been erroneously rejected. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Judicial Oversight - A Special Court cannot grant extensions for filing a charge-sheet in a routine or mechanical manner; the court must independently track the progress of the investigation and verify the justification for continued detention. (Paras 15, 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
Accused persons were arrested in connection with serious offences, including murder, and the provisions of organized crime legislation were subsequently invoked. The prosecution sought and was granted multiple extensions by the Special Court to file the charge-sheet beyond the initial 90-day period. The accused filed applications for default bail on three separate occasions, all of which were rejected by the Special Court on the grund that the extensions were valid. The charge-sheet was eventually filed after the final extension. The accused challenged the legality of the extension orders and the subsequent rejection of their bail applications.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the applications for extension were mere translations of reports provided by the investigating agency, indicating that the Public Prosecutor had not independently applied his mind. The reports failed to specify the actual progress of the investigation or provide concrete reasons for continued detention. The Special Court's orders were held to be cryptic and passed mechanically, failing to adhere to the statutory mandates of the applicable law.
Issues: Whether the extensions granted for filing the charge-sheet complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, and whether the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet extinguishes the right to default bail once that right has been invoked by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Strict compliance with the proviso to Section 21(2)(b) of the special act is essential to protect the constitutional right to liberty. A Public Prosecutor's report that merely reproduces the requests of the investigating officer without independent satisfaction is legally insufficient. Where extension orders are held to be illegal, the right to default bail is revived and cannot be defeated by a charge-sheet filed in the interregnum, provided the accused has already exercised their option to apply for bail.
Result: Appeal allowed. Orders extending time for filing charge-sheet and rejecting bail applications quashed. Appellants enlarged on bail.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23/2025
1. Mohsin Nasir Sheikh, Aged 35 yrs., Occ. Labour, 2. Abhijit @ Pawan Moreshwar Katare, Aged 35 yrs., Occ. Labour, 3. Sheikh Nasif Sheikh Rashid, Aged 33 yrs., Occ. Labour, All R/o. Jalnagar Ward, Chandrapur.
...APPELLANTS VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station officer, Police Station – Ramnagar, Dist. Chandrapur.
...RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Akshay Naik, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Aniruddha Jaltare, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ .
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT : 13.08.2025 PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 25.08.2025 JUDGMENT : ( PER: M. M. NERLIKAR , J .)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally.
3. By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged the orders dated 07.12.2024, 04.01.2025 and 18.01.2025, whereby the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur has extended the time for filing the charge-sheet. It is further prayed to quash and set aside the orders dated 09.12.2024, 08.01.2025 and 05.02.2025, by which the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur has rejected the application under Section 187(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) filed by the appellants for grant of statutory bail. It is further prayed that the appellants be enlarged on bail in offence registered with Police Station – Ramngar, Dist. Chandrapur vide Crime No. 798/2024 for commission of offence under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) and 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”)
Sections 3, 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
4. Brief facts:-
On 12.08.2024, informant Shivaji Vasanta Gonewar lodged the report with Police Station, Ramnagar, District Chandrapur alleging that at around 03.00 p.m. when the informant was at his house, deceased Haji called him and asked him to come to his house. The deceased informed him that one Nur and Sameer Sheikh are intending to commit his murder, and therefore he wanted to inquire by going to Chandrapur as he has received the information about the same. When the informant and deceased along with others were enroute towards Chandrapur at about 03.50 p.m., two persons boarded the car of deceased Haji and thereafter, all the five persons went to Shahidarbar Hotel, Chandrapur. When the deceased and other person went inside the hotel to have a meal at about 04.15 p.m. one white colour Renault Company car came and stopped in front of the informant. Seven persons got down from the said vehicle and they were armed with guns and knives. Immediately, the accused persons started firing bullets on the informant, who ran and took shelter behind the Pan Shop, however, two bullets hit him on his left leg. Thereafter, all the accused persons went inside the hotel and fired at Haji. After that, the accused persons ran away. Haji was brought to the Government Hospital, Chandrapur and during treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. On 13.08.2024, six accused persons out of seven surrendered and accordingly, they were arrested and granted Police Custody. During the investigation, it transpired that some other persons were also involved and accordingly, they were arrested on 18.08.2024, wherein the present appellants are also included as accused Nos. 9, 10 and 11. They were produced before the learned Magistrate on 18.08.2024 and the police custody remand was granted till
20.08.2024.
5. The following undisputed facts emerges from the record a proposal was sent for invoking the provisions of the MCOCA and accordingly, the approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the said Act w
