Detention Under MCOCA Can't Continue Despite Lawful Extension If Sanction To Prosecute Accused Rejected: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that once the competent authority under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA) denies sanction to prosecute an accused, their detention under MCOCA must be terminated, even if it had been lawfully extended earlier by the special MCOCA court.

Justice NJ Jamadar granted default bail to four accused individuals under MCOCA, emphasizing that without the necessary sanction, there cannot be a case under the Act.

“once the competent authority declines to grant sanction under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1999, the extended period for completion of investigation, would terminate on the day the competent authority declines to grant sanction and on the next day, the right to seek default bail, in the event chargesheet is not filed, accrues to the accused”, the court further observed.

The accused were implicated in a criminal conspiracy involving a robbery and were seeking bail.

The applicants are accused of robbing cash amounting to Rs.1,25,00,000 from the first informant on August 20, 2023. The Malad Police Station registered the case under various sections of the IPC and the Maharashtra Police Act. The investigation revealed that one of the co-accused was allegedly the leader of an organized crime syndicate, leading to the invocation of MCOCA.

The accused were arrested by the Mumbai police in September 2023 for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to commit robbery. Subsequently, the police sought an extension of time to file the chargesheet before the 90-day statutory period expired, and the special court granted an extension until December 18, 2023. However, on December 12, 2023, the competent authority rejected the police's request for sanction to prosecute.

The next day after rejection, on December 13, 2023, the accused applied for default bail before the magistrate. The police filed the chargesheet one day later on December 14, 2023. The magistrate rejected the bail application, citing the extension granted by the special MCOCA judge and the filing of the chargesheet within the extended period.

While the refusal of sanction does not invalidate the extension order for investigation, the court held that once the competent authority declines to grant sanction, the extended period for investigation ceases to operate.

Disagreeing with the magistrate's reasoning, the court clarified that the refusal of sanction for prosecution under MCOCA by the competent authority effectively terminated the extended period for the investigation. Consequently, the right to seek default bail arose the following day.

“once the competent authority refuses to grant sanction for prosecution, the justification for continued detention by invoking the provisions contained in Section 21(2) of the Act, 1999 may become incongruous”, the court observed.

Criticizing the Magistrate's rejection of the default bail application based on the filing of the chargesheet, the court concluded that the accused were entitled to default bail as they had availed themselves of the right to default bail by applying for bail before the charge-sheet was filed.

The court said that the Magistrate's interpretation has the “propensity to impair the cherished personal liberty irredeemably”.

The court directed the applicants' release on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.30,000/- each and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Case no. – Bail Application No. 210 of 2024

Case Title – Dinesh Ganesh Indre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra