Crl. Rev.P. No.317/2011

Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: August 19, 2011

Delivered on: August 25, 2011

+

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITON No.317/2011

DHARAMVIR SINGH @ DEEPAK

....PETITIONER

Through: Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advocate with Mr. O.P.

Sharma,

Advocate

&

Mr.

S.C.

Jha,

Advocate.

Versus

THE STATE(NCT OF DELHI)

.....RESPONDENT

Through: Mr. Pawan Narang, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 401 read with Section 482

Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 10^th May, 2011 passed by

learned Special Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in case FIR No.538/2010,

P.S. Anand Vihar titled “State Vs. 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.

2011:DHC:4320

Crl. Rev.P. No.317/2011

Page 2 of 8

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.

2011:DHC:4320

Crl. Rev.P. No.317/2011

Page 3 of 8

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 releva