Default bail pleas of Elgaar accused: Matter already decided by Bombay HC, says NIA Court

Default bail pleas of Elgaar accused: Matter already decided by Bombay HC, says NIA Court

Staff ReporterUpdated: Friday, July 08, 2022, 11:28 PM IST
article-image
National Investigation Agency (NIA) logo | File

A special court that recently rejected the default bail pleas of five of the Bhima Koregaon - Elgaar Parishad accused, has said in its reasoned order for doing so, that the ground on which they were seeking bail was already considered and decided by the Bombay High Court and they had no right to raise it in their present pleas.

The applications were filed by Surendra Gadling, Sudhir Dhavale, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen and Mahesh Raut. Bail pleas of Dhavale, Sen, Wilson and Raut were filed through advocate R. Sathyanarayan and advocate Neeraj Yadav. The pleas were on the grounds that the report submitted by the investigating officer seeking additional time to file the charge sheet did not qualify mandates under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the CrPC. It was further stated that no charge sheet had been filed under the stipulated period of 90 days that had lapsed on Sep 5, 2018, and that hence they were entitled to be released on bail.

The court mentioned in its order that after the pleas were filed before the Pune court in June 2019, the accused had moved a plea stating that the Pune court was not competent to take cognizance of the charge sheet against them. It came to be rejected and they had moved the Bombay HC in an appeal and this was rejected by the HC, where the HC refused their claim for release on default bail.

Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Judge Rajesh J. Katariya said in the order that the applications were filed way back in 2018, for which the prosecution had filed its response in two months' time when the case was at Pune court. It said that the record shows that no efforts were made by them for the hearing of the application either before Pune Court or before this Court after the transfer of the matter to Mumbai.

“The applicants have not put forth any explanation for not moving present applications for hearing for such a long time,” it added, stating further that the applicants cannot take benefits of their own wrong.

RECENT STORIES

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Bombay HC Refuses Interim Relief To Filmmaker Ramesh Sippy In Family Assets Case

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...