Read Time: 06 minutes
The high court observed that the applicant was not entitled to default bail because the charge sheet was already filed within 90 days as per Section 167 CrPc
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an accused does not have the right to seek default bail solely because the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was invoked after filing charges under the IPC offence.
“The right to claim default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr,P.C. will not revive as the invocation of the provisions of the MCOCA was not a new investigation but a continuation of the earlier investigation for IPC offence,” the bench held.
The single-judge bench of Justice MS Karnik heard a default bail application from two individuals accused in a murder case, charged under both IPC and MCOCA.
Following the filing of charges under the IPC offence, the police submitted the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit under Section 167 of the CrPc. Subsequently, the MCOCA offence was invoked, and sanction was obtained.
However, after invoking the MCOCA offence, the police did not file a supplementary chargesheet.
Subsequently, the two individuals applied for default bail before the Special MCOCA Court, but their application was rejected. In response, they approached the high court.
Senior Advocate Raja Thakare, representing the individuals, argued that despite the lapse of the 180 days under MCOCA, there was no formal remand.
Thakare further asserted that the delayed invocation of MCOCA is indicative of the investigating agency's malafides. He argued that it was apparent that, in one way or another, they intended to prolong the proceedings and undermine the accused's right to liberty.
Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegoankar argued that the invocation of MCOCA after filing the charge sheet for the IPC offence is not a new investigation but rather a continuation of the earlier one.
He emphasized that the Sessions Court had already taken cognizance, and therefore, the custody of the applicants would be governed by Section 309 of the Cr.P.C., not reverting back to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C.
Venegoankar further contended that the accused could not claim a fundamental right to default bail once the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated time.
Justice Karnik observed that the applicant was not entitled to default bail because the charge sheet was already filed within 90 days as per Section 167 CrPc.
“..as the charge-sheet was already filed within a period of 90 days, the condition of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be fulfilled, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for default bail. If the subsequent invocation of MCOCA cannot have an effect of extending the time period under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. it will have to be construed that the applicants cannot claim an entitlement for default bail after the charge-sheet is filed for the IPC offence,” the court said.
Case title: Amit Madhukar Bhogale vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
