Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge for Greater Bombay, Shri Dinesh E. Kothalikar, has rejected the MCOC Bail Application No. 1213 of 2020 filed by Mohd. Nadeem Naushad Shaikh, an applicant in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The application, heard on January 13, 2021, sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), arguing that an order extending the time to file the charge sheet was granted without providing him a fair hearing.

Procedural Non-Compliance and Absence

The court noted significant procedural lapses on the part of the applicant. An order dated December 8, 2020, had directed the applicant’s advocate to serve a copy of the bail application on the Investigating Officer, but this order was not complied with. Despite being granted “sufficient opportunity,” the non-compliance persisted. On the day of the hearing, January 13, 2021, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant, leading the court to take up the application for consideration independently.

Applicant’s Contention and Court’s Stance

Mohd. Nadeem Naushad Shaikh’s primary contention was that the respondent (State) had sought an extension of time to submit the charge sheet on November 11, 2020. The matter was adjourned to November 13, 2020, but the applicant claimed he did not engage an advocate and was not produced before the court from custody, thereby denying him a fair hearing. He argued that the order extending the time to file the charge sheet was granted without affording him an opportunity to be heard, thus entitling him to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

However, the Special Judge firmly rejected this argument. The court held that by challenging a previous order passed by a “Learned Predecessor,” the applicant was effectively attempting to have the current court act as an “Appellate Court,” which is impermissible in law.

Default Bail Not Accrued

The court emphasized that since the time to file the charge sheet was indeed extended by a previous order, and the charge sheet was subsequently submitted within that stipulated extended period, no right to default bail had accrued in favor of the applicant. Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is generally granted when the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed statutory period (usually 60 or 90 days, or up to 180 days in special acts like MCOCA, after seeking extensions from the court), and the accused seeks bail before the charge sheet is filed.

Given that the charge sheet had already been filed within the extended period, the court found no merit in the application.

Conclusion

In its order, Special Judge Dinesh E. Kothalikar stated, “In the background of aforesaid discussion, I hold that the application sans merit is liable to rejected.” Consequently, MCOC Bail Application No. 1213 of 2020 was rejected.

This case highlights the procedural requirements for seeking bail, especially in stringent acts like MCOCA, and the courts’ reluctance to revisit previous judicial orders in the same jurisdiction in the manner of an appeal. It also underscores that the right to default bail is contingent on the investigating agency’s failure to file the charge sheet within the legally permitted time, including any court-granted extensions.