17.APPEAL.431.2026 1/12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2026 Mahesh S/o. Ramprasad Piparne & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Darwha, Tah. Darwha, District Yavatmal & Anr. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Nayak, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Respondents/State. ------------------------------- CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND R AJ D. WAKODE , JJ. DATE : 01.09.2026 The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Darwha, dated 21.05.2026, whereby the Investigating Officer is permitted to re-arrest the accused, except accused No.8. 2. The present appellants are the original accused in connection with Crime No. 284 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(6) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The said crime was registered with Darwha Police Station, District Yavatmal, on 25.03.2025. Initially, the appellants/accused were arrested and subsequently released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, by order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 114 of 2025. 2026:BHC-NAG:11667-DB 17.APPEAL.431.2026 2/12 3. Subsequently, upon approval being granted under Section 23(1) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), the Investigating Officer was permitted to investigate the said crime by invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act. Accordingly, on 11.06.2025, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be added to Crime No. 284 of 2025 by respondent No.1. 4. The Investigating Officer thereafter filed an application along with the remand papers, seeking permission to re-arrest the accused on the ground that, upon the provisions of the MCOC Act having been invoked, further investigation in respect of the newly added offences was required and the custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. 5. The Investigating Officer accordingly approached the learned Special Judge seeking permission to re-arrest the accused on the ground that approval had been granted by the competent authority for invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act and that, consequently, further investigation was required to be carried out in respect of the offences under the MCOC Act. 6. Notice of the said application was issued to the accused. After hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge observed that, initially, the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(6) and 61(2) of the BNS, as well as the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, 17.APPEAL.431.2026 3/12 were registered against the accused. The learned Special Judge further observed that, subsequently, offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act came to be added and that investigation into the newly added offences was necessary. 7. The learned Special Judge further observed that there is no provision for pre-arrest bail under the MCOC Act and, therefore, the regular bail granted to the accused in respect of the offences initially registered could not be construed as bail in respect of the subsequently added offences under the MCOC Act. The accused were, however, granted liberty to file separate applications for regular bail in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act after their arrest. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations, the learned Special Judge permitted the Investigating Officer to re-arrest the accused, except accused No.8, on the ground that the provisions of the MCOC Act had subsequently been invoked and that investigation in respect of the newly added offences was required to be carried out. 9. Heard learned counsel Mr. Nayak for the appellants. He submitted that the Investigating Agency has not filed any application through the learned Special Prosecutor seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the appellants. Instead, the Investigating Agency has merely sought permission to re-arrest 17.APPEAL.431.2026 4/12 the accused, which is contrary to the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [(2019) 17 SCC 326]. 10. He further submitted that no separate application seeking cancellation of bail was filed before the learned Special Court. The learned Special Court also failed to consider that the application preferred by the Investigating Officer was not an application for cancellation of bail. Without cancelling the bail previously granted to the present appellants, the learned Special Court permitted the Investigating Officer to re-arrest them. According to the learned counsel, such an order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). 11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2021. He submitted that, in the said judgment, the Bench had considered the entire controversy arising out of the subsequent addition of offences after the accused had already been granted bail, and had also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). 12. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned Special Court erred in proceeding on the premise that merely because the offences under the MCOC Act were subsequently added, further investigation in respect thereof was necessary 17.APPEAL.431.2026 5/12 and, therefore, permission could be granted to the Investigating Officer to re-arrest the accused. According to him, the Investigating Agency was required to file an appropriate application seeking cancellation of the bail already granted to the appellants and, only upon cancellation of such bail, could the Investigating Officer be permitted to re-arrest the accused. 13. He further submitted that the learned Special Court failed to consider this legal position and also overlooked the mandate laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order permitting the Investigating Officer to re-arrest the appellants, without first cancelling the bail granted to them, is legally unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Per contra, learned APP supported the order passed by the learned Special Judge and submitted that it is not a case where no application was filed. He submitted that an application was, in fact, filed by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to re-arrest the accused. Therefore, according to the learned APP, no illegality has been committed by the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned order and, consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that, undisputedly, the present appellants were arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No. 284 of 17.APPEAL.431.2026 6/12 2025, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 310(6) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, with Darwha Police Station, District Yavatmal, on 25.03.2025. 16. During the course of investigation, it was revealed to the Investigating Agency that the present appellants were allegedly involved in continuous illegal activities and were members of an organised crime syndicate. Accordingly, a proposal was submitted for obtaining approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act. The competent authority considered the said proposal and, by order dated 11.06.2025, granted approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act, thereby permitting the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter by invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act. 17. Thereafter, the Investigating Agency filed an application before the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Darwha, seeking permission to re-arrest the appellants. The learned Special Judge, after issuing notice to the accused persons and hearing both sides, granted permission to the Investigating Agency to re-arrest the accused. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the issue involved in the present appeal has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). 17.APPEAL.431.2026 7/12 19. The impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge indicates that the appellants were heard and the learned Special Prosecutor was also heard before the learned Special Court. It further appears from the record that both sides have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). 20. In the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has set forth specific conclusions regarding the circumstances in which, after the grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non-bailable offences are added, as well as the legal course to be followed for seeking the production, custody or arrest of an accused who was earlier released on bail in connection with the same FIR. The Hon’ble Apex Court framed the issues in paragraphs 9.1 to 9.5, which read as under: “9. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on the record, following are the issues, which arise for consideration in these appeals: 9.1.(i) Whether in a case where an accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the accused in custody? 9.2.(ii) Whether re-registration of FIR No. RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second FIR and is not permissible there being already an FIR No. 2 of 2016 registered at Police Station Tandwa arising out of the same incident? 9.3.(iii) Whether NIA could conduct any further investigation in the matter when investigation in PS Case No. 2 of 2016 having already been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted on 10-3-2016 with regard to which 17.APPEAL.431.2026 8/12 cognizance has already been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 11-3-2016? 9.4.(iv) Whether the order dated 25-6-2018 passed by the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi remanding the appellant to judicial custody is in accordance with law? 9.5.(v) Whether the power under Section 167 CrPC can be exercised in the present case, where the cognizance has already been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11-3- 2016 or the accused could have been remanded only under Section 309(2) CrPC?” 21. In paragraph 31, the Hon’ble Apex Court, by explaining the circumstances, observed as under: “31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further cognizable and non- bailabe offences are added: 31.1. The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested. 31.2. The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrPC for arrest of the accused and his custody. 31.3. The court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) CrpC, can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-bailable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail. 17.APPEAL.431.2026 9/12 31.4. In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it needs to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the court which had granted the bail. 32. Issue (i) is answered accordingly.” 22. Thus, considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra), wherein the facts were similar to those of the present case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “The appellants had been granted bail. They are not in custody of the Court. They could not be taken in custody ordinarily unless their bail was cancelled. The High Court, in our opinion, was not correct in holding that as further investigation was required, sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code gives ample power for grant of police remand.” 23. In the present case also, the investigation in connection with Crime No. 284 of 2025 was initially carried out in respect of the offences for which the appellants had been granted bail. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency allegedly found the involvement of the present appellants in continuous illegal activities and, accordingly, a proposal was submitted for obtaining approval under Section 23(1) of the MCOC Act. The competent authority granted the said approval and, thereafter, the Investigating Agency filed an application seeking permission to re-arrest the appellants. 17.APPEAL.431.2026 10/12 24. Thus, in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra), if the Investigating Agency seeks custody of an accused for the purpose of further investigation on account of a change in circumstances, namely, the subsequent invocation of the provisions of the MCOC Act and addition of the offences thereunder, the procedure prescribed by law is required to be followed. 25. The Investigating Agency is required to initially seek cancellation of the bail granted to the accused and, only upon such bail being cancelled, can the accused be taken into custody in accordance with law. It has been held that where an accused has been granted bail and subsequently graver, cognizable and non-bailable offences are added, the accused may surrender and apply for bail in respect of the newly added offences. Upon rejection of such bail application, the investigating authorities would be empowered to arrest the accused in respect of the newly added offences. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further clarified that the mere addition of graver and non-bailable offences, after an accused has been released on bail, does not, in every case, make it necessary to cancel the earlier bail before the accused can be taken into custody. The course to be adopted would depend upon the circumstances of the case and the procedure contemplated under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17.APPEAL.431.2026 11/12 27. This aspect is also considered by this Court at Aurangabad Bench. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra), this Court has summarised the legal position and reiterated the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court contained in paragraph 31 thereof. 28. Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs 31(2) and 31(3), read conjointly, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Apex Court has crystallised the legal position in clause 31.4 that the Court which passes an order cancelling bail and directing the arrest of the accused, or simply directs the arrest of the accused, has to be the same Court which had earlier granted bail. Similarly, unless and until the bail earlier granted to the accused is cancelled in accordance with law, the Investigating Agency is not at liberty to arrest the accused. 29. In the case in hand, it is undisputed that the aforesaid procedure is not followed by the Investigating Agency. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (under the MCOC Act), Darwha, granting 17.APPEAL.431.2026 12/12 permission to the Investigating Officer to re-arrest the appellants/accused, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Liberty is granted to the State to file an appropriate application and proceed in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra). 30. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/09/2026 10:28:10