SC rejects NIA plea against HC relief to activist Bharadwaj
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the National Investigation Agency (NIA)’S petition against bail granted by the Bombay high court to activist Sudha Bharadwaj, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence case, as it affirmed that only a special court was competent to give more time to the agency to complete its investigation in the 2018 case.
A bench, headed by justice Uday U Lalit, held that there was no infirmity in the December 1 high court order granting default bail to Bharadwaj on account of the legal lacuna in the investigating agency seeking time beyond 90 days in filing a charge sheet in the case.
“The moot question is whether the court was a competent court to grant extension of time beyond the stipulated 90 days for filing of the charge sheet. If the competence was lacking, there was no valid extension of period and the lady had already moved for bail. So, she was entitled to statutory bail...we see no reason to interfere with the Bombay high court order,” observed the bench, which also comprised justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi. The court warned NIA against making any extraordinary arguments in its appeal against Bharadwaj’s bail order that may cast a shadow of doubt over validity of proceedings in several other cases lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
“Your argument has to be in the context of whole universe of criminal case. You cannot make an argument in this case and leave it,” commented the bench, as additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi, representing NIA, sought to argue that states cannot constitute courts under the NIA Act until the central government approves transfer of investigations to them. Lekhi had made this argument to buttress the point that not only a special court but even a sessions court was entitled to extend the time for filing the charge sheet. NIA took over the probe only in January 2020 while the 90 days expired on January 25, 2019. “How many such cases have you transferred? That means state which have constituted courts under NIA are without jurisdiction. That cannot be...you will be rendering your law redundant. You cannot make this argument for only this case and leave it at that. You are unduly restricting Section 22 of NIA Act (on power of states to constitute special courts). Otherwise also, you are denuding the state of its normal powers,” said the bench, rejecting Lekhi’s submissions. Several activists, lawyers and authors are facing charges under UAPA for participating in an alleged Maoist conspiracy to trigger violence on January 1, 2018, in the Bhima Koregaon village of Maharashtra’s Pune district.