Default bail under Section 167(2) runs from first remand, not later special-statute approval, for custody calculation.

For computing the 90-day investigation period under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, the clock runs from the date of the first remand and does not restart when later approval is obtained for investigation under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. Arrest and remand linked to the initial offences remained the relevant custody for default-bail purposes, and the special statute did not extend pre-trial detention absent the statutory report required for extension. The Court therefore treated continued custody beyond the prescribed period as unauthorised and recognised entitlement to default bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of 90 days for completion of investigation is to be reckoned from the date of the first remand, or from the later date when approval was granted for investigation under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

Analysis: The arrest and remand of the accused were made in connection with the initial offences, and the later discovery of organised crime aspects under the special statute did not create a fresh and independent arrest for computing the detention period under Section 167(2). The modified bail framework under the special statute could not extend the permissible period of pre-trial custody in the absence of the statutory report required for extension. The Court held that the object of Section 167(2) is to prevent unauthorized detention beyond the prescribed maximum period, and that the period does not restart merely because approval for investigation under the special statute is obtained later.

Conclusion: The 90-day period had to be counted from the date of the first remand, and the accused was entitled to bail for default. The appeal failed.

---