Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, dismissed appeals filed by two accused persons challenging the rejection of their default bail applications in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, along with provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court held that a Sessions Judge retains the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to arrange disposal of urgent matters in the Special Court judge's absence, and that the de facto doctrine would in any case validate such orders. The Court also called for additional judicial appointments to address recurring difficulties in managing MCOCA cases when the sole designated Special Court judge is unavailable.

Two accused persons were arrested in September 2025 in connection with an organised crime matter registered at Sultanpuri Police Station, Delhi. They were remanded to judicial custody and faced allegations of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

Also Read: DPDP–RTI Amendments: Supreme Court Issues Notice, Refers Challenges to Larger Bench; Declines Interim Stay

As the statutory ninety-day investigation period approached expiry, the prosecution sought an extension before the Special Court. The designated Special Court judge being on leave that day, a Link Judge, acting under an administrative roster, granted a fourteen-day extension. The accused thereafter filed applications for default bail, arguing the extension was legally invalid as it was not granted by the duly appointed Special Court judge.

The accused relied on Sections 5 and 6 of the MCOCA, contending that jurisdiction under the Act vests exclusively in a specially constituted and notified court. The prosecution countered that the Link Judge was a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, qualified under the Act, and empowered through a 2010 government notification and established administrative practice. Both sides placed reliance on prior judicial pronouncements concerning Special Court jurisdiction and default bail entitlements under relevant procedural law.

On the structural reality of Special Courts in Delhi, the Court stated that "there are 11 Sessions divisions in Delhi and that in each division, only one court has been designated as the Special Court."

On the consequence of this single-judge arrangement, the Court observed that "when there is only one judge appointed to the Special Court in each of the sessions division, Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of MCOCA cannot come into play and the judge appointed to the Special Court cannot distribute the business of his Court in his absence to any other member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service or the Sessions judge or additional Sessions judge appointed under Section 9(2) or (3) Cr.P.C/Section 8(2) or (3) BNSS."

On the practical difficulty arising from a single appointment, the Court stated: "When there is only one judge appointed to the Special Court established in a Sessions division, what would be the course open in case the said judge is unavailable or goes on leave?"

On the scope of the 2010 government notification relied upon by the prosecution, the Court observed that officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service had been conferred with the powers of a Special Court "only with effect from the date that he/they assume charge of the said court in pursuance of their transfer or posting orders." It recorded that the argument suggesting all officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service were broadly empowered was "apparently incorrect."

On the operation of Section 5(5) of the MCOCA, the Court stated that the provision "comes into play only when additional judge(s) is/are appointed to a Special Court" and that "in the absence of additional judges, the judge appointed under sub-section (3) cannot make over or make provision for the disposal of any urgent application in the event of his absence or inability to act."

On the Sessions Judge's residual powers under the Code, the Court observed that "a Sessions judge appointed under Section 9(2) Cr.P.C by virtue of sub-section (3) to Section 10 Cr.P.C. certainly has the power to do so." On preventing a judicial vacuum, the Court stated that "there cannot be a vacuum or a situation that no judge will be able to exercise the powers."

On the question of unlawful detention, the Court observed that the answer could "only be in the negative because as held in Abdul Rashid (Supra), relied on by the appellants themselves, the de facto doctrine, which is a doctrine of necessity and public policy would come into play."

On the unaddressed administrative deficiency, the Court recorded that "nearly nine years have elapsed" since the defect was flagged in the Rambeer Shokeen judgment and that "it is a matter of great concern that no steps have been taken till date to rectify the defect."

Also Read: Transfer & Posting Decisions Fall Within Administrative Discretion; CAT Cannot Interdict Them Through Ad-Interim Orders At Preliminary Stage: Delhi High Court

On the way forward, the Court stated that "it would certainly be ideal if additional Judge(s) are appointed to the Special Court or a few officers, if not, all the members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, are empowered to deal with offences under the MCOCA." It further stated that "it would do well for the High Court on the administrative side to consider the feasibility of appointing additional judge(s) to the Special Court already constituted or conferring the power to deal with offences under MCOCA to more members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service."

The Court directed that “the appeals sans merit are dismissed.” It further ordered that “Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed. This order may be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court for considering the matter.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kundan Kumar, Mr. Pranshu Kumar, Ms. Jaya Chandra, Ms. Divya Kundra, Mr. Madan Jha, Ms. Mahima Chaudhary and Ms. Prerna Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State with Inspector Ritesh.

Case Title: Deepa Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Connected Matter

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1315

Case Number: CRL.A. 1725/2025 & Connected Matter

Bench: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha