Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In appeals filed under Section 12, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) challenging rejection of applications for default bail, the Single Judge Bench of Chandrasekharan Sudha, J., held that a Link Additional Sessions Judge is competent to pass an order extending the period of investigation beyond the period of 90 days when the designated Special Judge is unavailable. The Court upheld the rejection of default bail under MCOCA and dismissed the appeals.
Background
The appellants were arrested for offences punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Sections 3 and 4 MCOCA. They were remanded to judicial custody on 12 September 2025, and the statutory period of 90 days for completion of the investigation was due to expire on 11 December 2025.
However, prior to expiry of the statutory period, the prosecution moved an application on 10 December 2025 seeking extension of time for investigation under Section 21(2)(b) MCOCA. As the Special Judge designated under MCOCA was on leave, the matter was taken up by the Link Judge pursuant to the Link Roster, who granted a limited extension of 14 days.
Subsequently, the appellants sought default bail, contending that the extension order was without jurisdiction since it was passed by an Additional Sessions Judge who had not been appointed as a Special Judge under Section 5(3) MCOCA. The Special Court rejected the plea, leading to the present appeal.
Issues:
Whether the Link Judge, who was not separately appointed as a Special Judge under Section 5(3) MCOCA, possessed jurisdiction to extend the period of investigation beyond 90 days, and whether the accused consequently acquired a right to default bail.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court examined Section 4(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) (and its equivalent under the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), and stated that offences under special statutes must ordinarily be dealt with in accordance with procedures prescribed in such enactments. The Court proceeded to analyse Sections 5 and 6 MCOCA and observed that every offence under the Act is triable only by the Special Court constituted under Section 5.
However, the Court held that the statutory framework must be read practically. It noted that in Delhi, each Sessions Division had only one designated Special Court under MCOCA. Consequently, where the Presiding Officer of such Special Court was unavailable due to leave or other reasons, an institutional vacuum could arise unless interim judicial arrangements were recognised.
In this context, the Court examined the Delhi Government notification dated 15-09-2010. It clarified that the notification did not automatically empower all officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to exercise jurisdiction under MCOCA. The power became exercisable only upon assumption of charge pursuant to transfer or posting orders. In light of this, the prosecution’s contention that every officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service possessed MCOCA jurisdiction was rejected.
Nevertheless, the Court held that the absence of Additional Judges appointed under Section 5(3) MCOCA created a practical situation not expressly addressed by the statute. Since Section 5(5) permits internal distribution of business and operates only when Additional Judges are appointed to the Special Court, that provision could not apply where only a single Special Judge existed.
To resolve this vacuum, the Court turned to the general procedural framework under Section 10(3) CrPC and the corresponding provisions under Section 8(5) and Section 8(8) BNSS. The Court held that a Sessions Judge retains administrative authority to ensure the disposal of urgent applications through Additional Sessions Judges when the presiding judicial officer is unavailable. The Court emphasised that criminal administration cannot be allowed to come to a standstill merely because the designated Special Judge is on leave.
The Court relied on Rambeer Shokeen v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8504, where directions were issued to avoid a vacuum in the functioning of Special Courts under special enactments and to ensure link arrangements similar to those followed in magistrate courts. The Court held that these observations reflected institutional necessity rather than unlawful conferment of jurisdiction.
The Court further addressed the argument that only a Special Judge could extend the investigation under Section 21(2)(b) MCOCA. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Link Judge’s order suffered from a technical infirmity, the Court held that such a defect would not automatically render custody illegal. The Court applied the de facto doctrine, as recognised in Abdul Rasheed Sikandarsab Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1756 wherein it was held that acts performed by a judicial officer functioning under colour of authority remain valid in the interest of the doctrine of necessity and public policy.
The Court also noted that the Special Judge subsequently extended the investigation period. Therefore, even on the appellants’ own argument, the detention could not be characterised as unlawful to confer an indefeasible right to default bail.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Court held that there existed no illegality in the order extending the investigation or in rejection of the default bail applications. The Court held that criminal justice administration must avoid situations where the absence of a Presiding Officer paralyses proceedings, particularly under special statutes dealing with organised crime.
The Court expressed concern that deficiencies earlier noticed in Rambeer Shokeen (Supra), had not yet been rectified as nearly nine years had elapsed. It recommended that the High Court on the administrative side consider the appointment of Additional Judges to Special Courts or conferment of powers upon more officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to prevent the recurrence of similar issues.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the rejection of default bail under MCOCA.
[Deepa Singh v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 608, decided on 17-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Kundan Kumar, Pranshu Kumar, Jaya Chandra, Divya Kundra, Madan Jha, Mahima Chaudhary, Prerna Jain, Advocates
For the respondents: Aman Usman, Additional Public Prosecutor