REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 967-968 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7210-7211 of 2007)

Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and Ors.

…Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra

…Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court holding that the order dated 4.9.2006 passed by

learned Special Judge in bail application No.32 of 2006 filed in remand

application No.17 of 2006 suffers from no infirmity.

3.

Criminal Appeal No.996 of 2006 was filed under Section 12 of the

Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (in short the ‘Act’).

4.

The bail application was preferred by the accused Nos. 5 to 8

challenging the order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Special Court thereby

granting second extension of 15 days to complete the investigation and to

file the charge-sheet. The bail application came to be rejected. It had been

prayed in the appeal that the appellants be released on bail in LAC No. 3 of

2006 on default of the prosecution in completing the investigation within

the extended period granted upto 21.8.2006. Whereas in Criminal Appeal

No. 736 of 2006 filed by the original accused nos. 5 to 8 under section 12 of

the Act, the order of extension passed by the Special Court on 7.8.2001 in

2

MA No. 260 of 2006 filed in Remand .Application No. 52 of 2006 was

prayed to be quashed and set aside, with the prayer that the appellants be

released on suitable bail on default of the prosecution in filing the charge-

sheet within the specified period of 90 days. As per the prosecution

Criminal Appeal 736 of 2006 would not survive after disposal of the bail

application No.32 of 2006 by the Special Court.

5.

The sequence of events in the instant appeals is as under:

(a)

The appellants were arrested on 13.5.2006 on the

charges punishable under the MCOC Act, 1999.

(b) The period of initial 90 days to complete the investigation

expired on 6.8.2006.

(c) The first application by the prosecutor for extension of time

was filed on 3.8.2006.

(d) The first order, granting extension was passed on 7.8.2006

and the extension of 15 days so granted was to expire on

21.8.2006.

(e) The second application for extension was preferred by the

prosecutor on 21.8.2006 seeking further extension and the

Special Court granted extension upto 4.9.2006.

(f) The charge sheet has been filed on 4.9.2006.

(g) Criminal Appeal No. 996 of 2006 has been presented on

7.10.2006 before the High court i.e. after the charge sheet was

filed.

3

6.

It was submitted that the Special Court erred in law in rejecting the

bail application by the order dated 4.9.2006 and while doing so it

misinterpreted the provisions of section 21 (2) (b) of the Act. In short, it is

submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that though the period

for completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet is extended by

another 90 days and the investigation is required to be completed in a

maximum period of 180 days, there is no provision for granting extension

after completion of 90 days in piecemeal in as much as the power of

granting extension beyond 90 days can be exercised by the Special Court

only once and while doing so, the Special Court on an application moved by

the prosecutor can either refuse to grant extension or grant extension for

any number of days upto 90 days, but if the extension application for the

first occasion is considered and extension is granted for any period less than

90 days, the second application for granting extension moved by the

prosecutor cannot be entertained and the Special Court has no such powers

to consider such second application or any number of applications filed by

the prosecutor for extension upto a total period of 180 days to complete the

investigation and file t