The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the state authorities to reply inside two weeks to the default bail plea of activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, at the moment lodged in Byculla ladies’s jail in reference to the Elgaar Parishad case. Bharadwaj was arrested in August 2018.
The counsel for Bharadwaj submitted that extension of custody granted by a trial courtroom to Pune Police in 2018 was not legitimate because the decide who allowed the identical was not designated to hear issues pertaining to scheduled offences underneath the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
On June 11, a single-judge bench of the HC had allowed Bharadwaj’s counsel, advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, to transfer the plea earlier than a division bench after he submitted earlier than the courtroom that the chargesheet within the case was not filed throughout the statutory 90-day interval and, therefore, the activist was entitled to a default bail as per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Chaudhry advised a division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice NJ Jamadar listening to Bharadwaj’s plea on Tuesday that the decide who handed the order on extension of custody was, at the moment, not designated as a particular decide underneath the NIA Act to hear issues pertaining to the UAPA.
Chaudhry relied on responses obtained underneath the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the HC registry, which acknowledged that the periods decide KD Vadane, who had granted 90-day extension of Bharadwaj’s detention as sought by Pune Police on November 26, 2018, was solely a district and extra periods decide at Pune. Vandane was not appointed because the Special Judge by the state authorities underneath part 22 of the NIA Act, 2008 for the interval between January, 2018 and July, 2019, Chaudhry stated. The lawyer additional referred to RTI replies and stated the stated decide was additionally not authorised to take cognisance of supplementary chargesheet filed by Pune Police in February, 2019.
However, advocate Sandesh Patil, arguing for the NIA, opposed the plea and stated that because the central company had taken over the probe, the grievances towards the state police at this stage weren’t maintainable and sought two weeks’ time to file a reply to the plea, which the bench allowed and posted additional listening to to July 3.