No default bail for HR activists
In a major setback to rights’ activists, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that they are not entitled to ‘default bail.’ The apex court, accordingly quashed orders of the Bombay High Court, which refused to grant an additional 90 days to Pune Police for filing its charge sheet.
This comes as a setback for advocate Surendra Gadling and other activists, who were arrested in August 2018 for their alleged roles in the Bhima-Koregaon violence. The activists have also been accused of plotting to kill PM Narendra Modi.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however, clarified that the activists can now seek a regular bail, as the Pune Police has already filed the charge sheet.
“We are not able to persuade ourselves to agree with conclusions of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order and hold that the accused (activists) would not be entitled to the benefit of default bail and consequently the impugned order is set aside,” the bench also comprising of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kaul, said.
“We may, however, clarify that since the charge sheet has been filed, any observations made by us, would not in any manner affect the right of the accused to seek regular bail from the trial court, if so advised, which would be decided on its own merits by the trial court,” the bench ruled.
The bench was seized with an appeal filed by the Pune Police challenging orders of the Bombay High Court, which quashed a trial court order.
The HC bench of Justice Mridula Bhatkar had in October 2018, quashed the orders by which the trial court had extended the custody of Gadling and others by an additional 90 days. The custody was extended so as to enable the police to further probe the matter and file its charge sheet.
In her orders, Justice Bhatkar noted that Pune Police did not follow the due procedure of law as envisaged in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The anti-terror law allows the prosecution to seek extra time to file its charge sheet, thereby, further extending the custody of an accused.
As per this law, a public prosecutor must file its report before the trial court and seek extra time for filing a charge sheet.
However, Justice Bhatkar had noted that Pune Police did not let the prosecutor file such a report and instead an application was submitted by the investigating officer (IO) of the case.
Not agreeing with Justice Bhatkar’s conclusions, the top court bench said, “The first document placed before the trial court was an application filed by the IO and the second one was purportedly filed by the prosecutor.
The second document in the form of an application shows scrutiny of the first document and thereafter details grounds and expanded reasons for the requirement of further time to complete the investigation.”
“Thus, there was an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the accused to the benefit of a default bail,” the bench said while allowing the appeal filed by the Pune Police.