Bombay High Court Reserves Order On Default Bail Plea Of Eight Accused In Bhima Koregoan

By Khan Ahmad Darvesh

Mumbai High Court on Wednesday upheld a petition led by eight defendants in the caste violence case of Bhima Koregaon Elgar Parishad, questioning a conference judge on Pune’s perception of the charges and seeking default bail .

In accordance with article 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 43D (2) of the Law for the Prevention of Illegal Activities, the accused leader appealed the order of the Court of Sessions to reject the request for bail by default .

The National Bureau of Investigation accused the petitioners Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira and seven others of committing terrorist acts under the Law (Prevention) of Illegal Activities.

The petitioners represented by the defenders Sudeep Pasbola and R Satyanarayanan argued that only the special courts under the NIA Act had the power to hear the charges, not the trial judges.

The accusation is not valid without jurisdiction.

General Counsel Ashutosh Kumbhakoni objected to the statement, arguing that the judge who heard the accusation form does not matter for the breach of contract bond under CrPC Article 167 (2).

The only criterion is that the allegation must be filed within the prescribed 180 days, because the police have obtained a 90-day delay in delivery of documents.

Kumbhakoni claimed that the motive was unsustainable because the petitioner did not challenge the order granting the deferment to leave the charge form. He said: “Once the fee schedule is submitted within the prescribed time limit, there will be no issue of defaulted bonds.”

Additional Attorney General Anil Singh adopted Kumbakoni’s argument. “There are reasons to believe that knowledge is irrelevant for the default bonds that are now required.” In’s rebuttal, Pasbola stated that the extension of the charge form was challenged in a separate procedure. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have accepted the order.

It believes that the main issue is whether the court that finally confirmed the charge has the right to do so.

“See CrPC’s 460. This (no need to show the charge to the special court) is not a violation, but an incurable violation,” the court said.

Subsequently, the court retained the order request. HC may pass a verdict on similar charges against co-defendant Sudha Bharadwaj, and the order was retained on August 4.

Legal