A Delhi court denied default bail to gangster Kala Jatheri in a MCOCA case. The plea, based on the non-filing of a charge sheet in time, was rejected as the prosecutor had already filed for an investigation extension before the bail application.
Rohini Court denied bail to Kala Jatheri in a case under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). Kala Jatheri had sought default bail on the ground of non-filing of the charge sheet within a given period.
Jatheri had also claimed that neither the charge sheet was filed nor the period of investigation was extended at the time of filing the bail plea. The court rejected the contention that the plea for extension of the investigation period was not filed before a competent judge. This case pertains to an FIR lodged in Aman Vihar police Station in 2024.
Court's Rationale for Bail Denial
Special Judge (MCOCA) Muneesh Garg on Thursday dismissed the bail plea of Sandeep alias Kala Jatheri. While rejecting the bail plea, the court said, "Since the application for further extension was moved by the prosecutor prior to moving of the application for default bail by the applicant (Jatheri), no right of default bail occurs in favour of the applicant."
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application for default bail moved on behalf of the accused is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is disposed of as dismissed," Special Judge ordered on Thursday.
Legal Arguments Over Extension Plea
Defense Contests Jurisdiction
Advocate Rohit Kumar Dalal filed a default bail plea and sought bail on the ground that a charge sheet was not filed within the time period provided under MCOCA. The plea for extension of the period of investigation, as it was filed before the Duty Judicial Magistrate.
The court rejected the contention and said that the prosecutor had no choice except to move the application before the Duty Magistrate, and promptly moved the application before the expiry of the period of filing the charge sheet. It also noted, "It is not the case that the prosecutor was sleeping over his rights or filed the application after expiry of the period of filing of charge-sheet or erroneously filed the application before the Magistrate."
"It is only under the compelling circumstances created due to the sudden declaration of holidays that the Prosecutor moved the application promptly before the Duty Magistrate, available in the District. Judicial Magistrate had not extended the period of investigation; he only issued the notice of the application to the accused persons," Special Judge said.
The court observed, "In such circumstances and considering the de facto doctrine, which is a doctrine of necessity and public policy, the application moved before the Duty Magistrate by the Prosecutor cannot be recognised as non-existent."
Sandeep alias Kala Jatheri sought default bail on the ground that on March 2, 2026, an application under section 21(2)(b) MCOC Act seeking further extension from 121 days to 180 days was moved by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Akhand Pratap Singh before the learned Magistrate, who has no jurisdiction under the MCOC Act to entertain or decide any such prayer.
Advocate Rohit Dalal argued that the learned Magistrate merely directed the application to be placed before this Court on March 6, 2026. He stated that, as on March 5, 2026, when the earlier extended period of investigation and detention expired, there was no valid order of extension passed by the Special Court under Section 21(2)(b) MCOCA, nor was any competent extension application seized of this Court.
Prosecution's Stance and Final Ruling
"The only application in existence was one misfiled before a court lacking jurisdiction, which cannot be treated as a 'pending extension application' under the law," the counsel argued. It was further stated that till the midnight of March 5, 2026, no further extension of time for investigation and detention had been granted by the Special Court; and no charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in the present case.
On the other hand, SPP Akhand Pratap Singh opposed the bail plea and argued that, as per the record, the present application was filed on March 6, 2026, on the filing counter and received in the Court on the same day. SPP filed his report seeking an extension of time for the completion of the investigation on March 2, 2026, before the Duty Magistrate, and the same was received in the Court on March 6, 2026.
The matter was adjourned as Special Judge since he was on leave on March 6, 2026, and the report of SPP was adjourned for March 12, 2026. "Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the report seeking further extension was filed by the SPP, though before the Duty Magistrate, prior to moving the application for default bail on behalf of the accused," the court said while rejecting the bail plea on Thursday. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)