[MCOCA] If State Cites Seriousness Of Offence To Oppose Bail, It Must Avoid Delays In Critical Processes Like Appointing Prosecutor: Delhi HC
While dismissing an accused’s plea in a MCOCA case, the Delhi High Court has observed that the State must avoid delays in “critical processes” such as appointment of an SPP where it cites seriousness and gravity of alleged offence to oppose a plea.
“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,” Download Free Download Download Sharma said.
“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 Court said.
It observed that when the State opposes a petition of an accused by emphasizing the seriousness and gravity of the alleged offence, it is expected that the same degree of seriousness is reflected in the actions and approach of the prosecuting agency itself.
The Court dismissed a plea filed by one Sukhbir Singh arrested in a MCOCA case, challenging the trial court order denying him default bail. He also challenged the extension of period of investigation under Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA and also remanding him in the case.
It was the accused’s case 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 concerned.
Dismissing the plea, the Court concluded that fhe 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.
“Moreover, the learned Vacation Judge did not rely solely on the said report, but also summoned l the case diary and perused it in detail, thus exercising judicial discretion with due application of mind, as required by law,” the Court said.
It further noted that although the formal notification of SPP appointment was pending, the decision to appoint him had already been taken and communicated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that at best, this could constitute a procedural irregularity, but not a substantive illegality, it said.
The Court concluded that a report was submitted by the SPP which had set out the reasons justifying the need for extension of the investigation.
It said that once the statutory safeguards had been substantively complied with and no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the process of investigation cannot be derailed or nullified on hyper-technical grounds.
“The aforenoted procedural lapse, of delay in issuing the official notification of the appointment of SPP, thus, does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or result in any unfairness, and does not justify setting aside impugned orders which were passed with full application of judicial mind, and there has been no miscarriage of justice or prejudice caused to the petitioner,” the Court said.
Title: SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO