1

crapl 434.22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.434 OF 2022

KIRAN MADHAV HAZARE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

...

Advocate for Appellants : Ms. Sonawane Sunita G.

APP for Respondent : Mr. P K Lakhotiya

...

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL & BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, JJ.

Dated: June 21, 2022

...

PER COURT :-

1.

This appeal is preferred under section 12 of the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999

(hereinafter referred to as ‘MCOCA’) challenging the

order dated 9.5.2022 passed by the learned Special

Judge, Kopargaon, thereby rejecting the bail

applications fled by the appellants for grant of bail

under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

By the same prayer, challenge is also made to the

extension of period granted by the same Court to the

Respondent-Investigating Agency to fle charge-sheet in

FIR bearing C.R.No.I-394 of 2021 registered with Shirdi

Police Station, District Ahmednagar originally for the

aaa/-

2

crapl 434.22.odt

offences punishable under sections 307, 109 r/w 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3, 25 of the

Indian Arms Act.

2.

At the outset, we asked the learned counsel for the

appellant as to how the appeal was maintainable. She

submitted that, in the past, a Division Bench of this

Court in Criminal appeal no.502 of 2020 had

entertained the appeal against similar order and,

therefore, the appeal would be maintainable.

3.

Learned APP submitted that, the order is purely

interlocutory and, therefore, appeal would not be

maintainable.

4.

We have considered these submissions. Section

12 of MCOCA Act reads thus :-

“12. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an

appeal shall lie from any judgement, sentence or order, not

being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High

Court.

(2) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within

thirty days from the date of the judgement, sentence or

order.”

aaa/-

3

crapl 434.22.odt

5.

Therefore, if challenge is to an interlocutory order,

appeal would not lie. Question here is ‘Whether the

impugned order was in the nature of interlocutory or

not’. From that angle, We have considered these

submissions. In this connection certain Judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court throw

some light on the issue. The order of another Division

Bench referred to by the learned counsel for the

appellant has not specifcally addressed this issue.

6.

In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra

Shantilal Nahar as reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 555,

a learned Single Judge of this Court had observed in

paragraph no.8 that “it is well established that an order

allowing or rejecting the application of bail in a pending

case for trail is an interlocutory order.”

7.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of State

of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General,

National Investigation Agency Versus Mohd. Hussain

alias Saleem as reported in (2014) 1 SCC 258 had

aaa/-

4

crapl 434.22.odt

observed in paragraph no.7 that “an order of grant or

refusal of bail is an interlocutory order. In that case, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of

appeal provided under NIA Act. In that Act, special

provision for appeal is made for challenging an order of

grant or refusal of bail under sub-section (4) of Section

21 of the NIA Act. In MCOCA, no such special provision

for Appeal against an order of grant or refusal of bail is

made.

8.

Another judgment in this context is of Three Judge

Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

State Represented by Inspector of Police and others

Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate as reported in (20