TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrest she was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded her to custody. As a charge sheet was not laid within 90 days thereof she applied for being released on bail as per the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). Though the Metropolitan Magistrate disallowed her prayer a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay allowed her to be released on bail solely on the aforesaid ground. The said order of the High Court is now being challenged by the State of Maharashtra. The main contention of the State is that the period of 90 days envisaged in Section 167(2) of the Code should be reckoned from the date when the police started investigation into the offences under the Maharashtra Contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers the magistrate to authorise the arrested person to be detained in custody for a term not exceeding 15 days and a magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial is empowered to authorise detention of the accused person even beyond the period of 15 days, if the magistrate is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for doing so. Nonetheless, such magistrate cannot authorise detention for a total period exceeding 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years. As the proviso to Section 167(2) is the hub of the plea made by the respondent we find it necessary to extract it here. It reads thus: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Section 167(2) of the Code. It is useful to extract Section 21 of that Act. It reads thus: 21. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or in any other law, every offence punishable under this Act, shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code and cognizable case as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modifications that, in sub-section (2),-- (a) the reference to fifteen days and sixty days wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to thirty days and ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition to the limitations under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on the granting of bail. (7) The police officer seeking the custody of any person for pre-indictment or pre-trial interrogation from the judicial custody shall file a written statement explaining the reason for seeking such custody and also for the delay, if any in seeking the police custody. It is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra that the Public Prosecutor has not filed any report before the Special Court showing reasons for the detention of the respondent beyond 90 days from the date of the first remand order. Hence they are disabled from contending that the proviso to Section 21(2) of the MCOC Act would enable the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand to custody subject to the provisions of the Code relating to bail and subject to the provisions of cancellation of bail, already granted in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Maharashtra{1996 (1) SCC 722}. So we leave the second limb of the contention without expressing any opinion on the merits since it is open to the court concerned to consider that aspect when any motion is made in that behalf. Dealing with the first limb of the contention learned counsel elaborated it by reference to Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act, which contains an embargo that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no information about the commission of an offence of organised crime under this Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d remain unextendable. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra that a new period of 90 days would commence from the date when approval was accorded under Section 23 of the MCOC Act for initiating investigation for any offence under the said Act. In the present case, accused would be entitled to bail, not on the merits of the case, but on account of the default of the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 90 days from the date of the first remand of the respondent. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to move for cancellation of the bail in the manner indicated by this Court in Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
