Accused Not Entitled To Default Bail Merely On Ground Of Non-Issuance Of Official Notification Of SPP’s Appointment: Delhi High Court Upholds Bail Dismissal In MCOCA Case

The petitioner is an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS] read with Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 [MCOCA]. The Petitioner challenged the order of the ASJ vide which his application for the grant of default bail was dismissed. He further sought to assail the order passed by the Vacation Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, extending the period of investigation as enabled under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA and also remanding the petitioner.

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “No mala fides have been alleged against his appearance in the present matter, nor has any prejudice or unfairness been demonstrated to have been caused to the petitioner on account of his appearance. No argument regarding his appointment was raised before the learned Vacation Judge at the time of passing of impugned order dated 13.06.2025. In such circumstances, the argument that, merely on this technical or procedural ground (that the official notification of the appointment of SPP Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh had not been issued), the accused is entitled to default bail and that the entire proceedings stand vitiated – does not merit acceptance.”

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Petitioner while ASC Sanjeev Bhandari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case arose out of a shooting incident. One Sunil Jain was shot dead while returning home on a Scooty with his friend, following their routine walk. Two unidentified individualshad allegedly fired multiple rounds at Sunil Jain and fled. The FIR was registered and subsequently transferred to the Counter-Intelligence Cell. During the investigation, the assailants were identified as Naveen Kasana and Mukesh Kumar @ Sachin @ Golu, both having a serious criminal history. It was revealed that the murder was a case of mistaken identity arising from an ongoing gang rivalry. Sunil Jain, who bore a resemblance to the intended target’s father, was mistakenly gunned down.

The CCTV footage confirmed the buyer to be Shahnawaz Khan of Dilshad Garden, who stated that he had recharged the number on instructions of one Sub-Inspector Sukhbir of Delhi Police – the petitioner herein. The petitioner was apprehended while travelling in his car. The case of prosecution was that the police personnel had introduced themselves to Sukhbir and sought his cooperation in the investigation; however, he had refused to cooperate, locked the vehicle, and during an altercation with the police team, had allegedly misplaced the keys. Later the same day, the car was opened with the assistance of a mechanic, and a search was conducted. After detailed interrogation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the petitioner was formally arrested and remanded to police custody.

An application was moved by the State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Designated MCOCA Court, seeking extension of the petitioner’s judicial custody as well as the time for completion of the investigation beyond the 90-day period and the same was allowed. Thereafter, when the extended 120-day period was due to expire, another application was moved by the State seeking a further extension of the period of investigation, custody, and detention of the petitioner up to the maximum limit of 180 days. An extension of 30 days for the completion of investigation was given. This order was challenged by the petitioner along with the order denying him the relief of bail.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the MCOCA, the Bench explained that Section 21(2) provides that the statutory period for completion of the investigation shall be 90 days. Section 21(2)(b) further provides a specific exception to Section 167 of Cr.P.C. in cases where an investigation is being conducted under MCOCA. As per this provision, the default period for completion of investigation is 90 days, this period can be extended up to 180 days by the Special Court. The extension is not automatic; but it requires a ‘report’ by the Public Prosecutor, and such a report must specifically indicate the progress of the investigation and justify the necessity of continued detention beyond 90 days. The power to grant such an extension vests exclusively with the Special Court under MCOCA, and is exercisable only on the basis of a report filed by the Public Prosecutor, it explained.

The Bench took note of the primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner – that the extension of the investigation period and continued detention beyond 120 days was vitiated owing to the alleged absence of a valid ‘report’ by the SPP, and the alleged lack of proper appointment of the SPP. On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the Vacation Judge did act upon an independent report submitted by the SPP. The said report of the SPP would not have been supplied to the present accused, as such a report was not required to be supplied to an accused as per law.

As per the Bench, the statutory requirement under Section 21(2)(b) of the MCOCA, which mandates that a report by the Public Prosecutor must be filed, justifying the request for extension of time for investigation, was duly complied with in the present case. Moreover, the Vacation Judge did not rely solely on the said report, but also summoned the case diary and perused it in detail, thus exercising judicial discretion with due application of mind, as required by law.

It was further noticed that the SPP Akhand Pratap Singh had been appointed as SPP in several other cases, including under MCOCA and he had already been approved for appointment as SPP in the present case by the Government, and the issuance of the official notification by the office of the Lt. Governor was the only remaining procedural formality.

The Bench was of the view that the extension of the period of investigation and consequent judicial remand of the petitioner was valid in law. As the period for completion of the investigation as per Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA qua the petitioner had not expired, thus, the Bench held that the dismissal of the default bail application of the petitioner vide the impugned order suffered from no infirmity.

“Thus, if the State’s contention is that the case is of a serious and grave nature, requiring the Court to adopt a cautious and stringent approach, it is equally incumbent upon the State to act with due promptitude and avoid delays in critical processes such as the appointment of an SPP. This observation is made only as a note of caution, with the expectation that greater administrative efficiency will be ensured in such cases going forward”, the Bench said while dismissing the Petition.

Cause Title: Sukhbir Singh v. State Nct of Delhi Through SHO (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6658)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Swapnil Krishna, Chandveer Shyoran, Sachit Sharma, Rishabh Bhati, Madhusruthi N

Respondent: ASC Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP Akhand Pratap Singh, Advocates Arjit Sharma, Sushant Bali, Sakshi Jha, Samridhi Dobhal, Krishna Mohan Chandel, Hritik Maurya, Aashrit Sukhija, Mayank Kaushik

Click here to read/download Order