SADHWI PRADNYA SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail filed by the applicant. According to the applicant she was arrested on 10th October, 2008 and according to the prosecution, the applicant was arrested on 23rd October, 2008 and produced before the Court on 24th October, 2008. The provisions of the MCOC Act were made applicable on 20th November, 2008. The application for bail filed by the applicant under Section 21(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime, Act (hereinafter referred to as "the MCOC Act") was rejected by the Special Court on 9th July, 2009. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439, 401 and 402 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Amit Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution about the maintainability of this application under the said provisions. It is submitted that taking into consideration the scheme of the MCOC Act and the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act, the provisions of Section 439 by necessary implication are excluded and as such, the High Court does not have the power to entertain this application under Section 439. Similarly, it is submitted that since the order passed by the Special Court on an application under Section 21(1)(b) is a final order, appeal was maintainable under Section 12 of the MCOC Act) and therefore, a revision under Sections 401, 402 also is not maintainable.

(3.) HE then submitted that the order of bail ordinarily was interlocutory order and therefore, an appeal could not be entertained under Section 12 of the said Act. He submitted that the Apex Court in the case of State Rep. by Inspector of Police and others v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, AIR 2004 SC 2282, had laid down that the order of remand was passed under Section 167 authorizing detention of the accused in the custody of the police was a pure and simple interlocutory order and therefore, appeal under Section 12 would not be maintainable. He submitted that the statement made by Counsel for the prosecution, therefore, was incorrect and tried to distinguish the judgment in the case of Ramsaran, 1976 Mh.L.J. 432. Learned Senior Counsel tried to distinguish the judgment in the case of Ramsaran (supra) and Ratan Mandal, 2006 CRI.L.J. 781, and he submitted that the premise on which the said order was passed was itself incorrect and this order was contrary to the Supreme Court order in N.M.T. Joy Immaculate's case (supra). He submitted that an order could be a final order only if it finally decides the issue in the trial which was pending and the orders passed in all applications which were filed, would have to be treated as interlocutory orders since it did not decide the main issue i.e. main criminal case. He submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of N.M.T. Joy Immaculate (supra) had taken into consideration the said aspect and therefore, the ratio of the said two judgments had been overruled by the Apex Court in the said case.