The Bombay High Court recently held that once a chargesheet is filed within the time period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the right to claim default bail would not survive merely because additional offences under special acts are invoked after the filing of the chargesheet [Amit Bhogale v. State of Maharashtra and connected matter].
The Court explained that the subsequent invocation of a special law in the same case cannot have an effect of extending the time period under Section 167 (concerning the period of investigation, remand, detention etc.) of the CrPC.Single-judge Justice MS Karnik made the observation while rejecting the default bail plea of two persons accused of murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
“In the present case, 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's December 22 order stated.
The Court was hearing bail pleas by Amit Bhogale and Vaibhav Aglave (applicants) who were among those arrested in October 2021 for the offence of murder under the IPC.A chargesheet was filed against some of the accused on November 26, 2021 and against some others on February 23, 2022 within the period prescribed under Section 167 CrPC.
The prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Police for invoking Section 23 (1)(a) of MCOCA was granted on September 23, 2022. The Special Court added charges under MCOCA in the same FIR three days later. An application for remand was rejected by the Special Court on December 3, 2022.
Meanwhile, the applicants filed for default bail which the special court did not grant and this was challenged before the High Court.The accused claimed that while the chargesheet against them for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was filed within the statutory period, no chargesheet was filed with respect to the offences under the MCOCA, which were added after the filing of the chargesheet.The High Court ruled that the investigation under the MCOCA was a continuation of the earlier investigation for the IPC offence. The provisions of MCOCA were invoked because the material under the MCOCA was found against the applicants, the Court noted.The Court noted that the FIR initially was registered only under the provisions of the IPC and that a chargesheet was filed within 90 days as required under Section 167 CrPC.Therefore, no right to default bail would subsist even if MCOCA was invoked after the chargesheet was filed, the Court opined.
“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 Court held.The High Court further noted that merely because approval was granted under Section 23 of the MCOCA after the filing of the chargesheet, it would not mean that the applicants were found to have been involved in some other offences disconnected from the offence for which they were already arrested.
“The investigation into the offences which they were arrested initially had revealed other ramifications associated therewith and hence, further investigation upon obtaining prior approval would continue to relate to the same arrest. In such a scenario the period envisaged in the proviso to Section 167(2) would remain unextendable," the Court said.
Therefore, court rejected the default bail pleas before it.
TAGS: Bombay High Court Default Bail MCOCA Chargesheet
