NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Bombay high court’s order granting default bail to lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj in the 2018 Elgar Parishad case and dismissed the plea of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which had challenged the high court verdict.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi did not find any error in the HC verdict and remarked that there was no need to interfere. It said that the only issue involved in the case was whether the court, which had allowed the application for extension of her detention in November 2018, was competent or not.
"There was little reason to overturn the high court order that granted the 60-year-old activist bail earlier this month. The apex court was right in dismissing the NIA's appeal. In fact, there is a strong case for the argument that the activist should have got bail earlier.-TimesView"
Additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi, appearing for the NIA, argued that the court which had extended her detention was competent, but the SC bench was not satisfied It said there is a provision of designated court under various laws, including TADA, POTA, NDPS, etc.
It said only special courts, which are aware of the intricacies of such laws, could take cognisance in such cases.
SC upholds bail even before hearing Bharadwaj’s counsel
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Bombay High Court’s order granting default bail to lawyer-activist Sudha Bharadwaj in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case and dismissed the plea of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which had challenged the HC verdict.
The apex court bench said that when there was a special designated court available to deal with such cases, other courts would not have jurisdiction to pass order in cases involving scheduled offences under the Act.
The bench was so convinced with the correctness of the HC verdict that it dismissed the NIA’s plea without even hearing the contention of Bharadwaj who had already filed a caveat in the SC to ensure that the court does not pass any order without hearing her. Her counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, was present when the ASG was trying to convince the court that the HC order was wrong but he did not get an opportunity to argue or counter the contention of NIA as the bench dismissed the plea after the ASG concluded his arguments for the NIA.
The social activist was granted default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on December 1 on the grounds that the additional sessions court, Pune—which had extended the time for investigation in the case beyond 90 days—was not competent to do so as his court had not been designated a special court under Section 22 of the NIA Act.
The HC had said that when a special court designated under the NIA Act, 2008, existed in Pune, the sessions judge had no jurisdiction to extend the detention beyond the stipulated 90 days. It directed that Bharadwaj be produced before the special NIA court on December 8 to decide on the conditions of her bail and the date of her release.
The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the city’s outskirts. The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The probe in the case was later transferred to the NIA in January 2020.
Eight other accused had sought default bail saying they had been in custody for over 180 days with no proper cognizance of the chargesheet against them. Their custody was extended by 90 days by the Pune additional sessions judge “without jurisdiction,” the HC had noted. But it had held that its declaration that the extension was not lawful “is of no assistance” as they “did not avail of the right to be released on default bail.”
