Bhima Koregaon case: SC directs Maharashtra to submit charge sheet by December 8

The Pune Police had arrested lawyer Surendra Gadling, Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, Dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale, activist Mahesh Raut and Kerala native Rona Wilson in June.

Published: 03rd December 2018 02:10 PM  |   Last Updated: 03rd December 2018 03:09 PM   |  A+A-

Activists Arrest

(T-B) Sudha Bharadwaj was arrested in Faridabad, Arun Ferreira in Mumbai, Writer Vara Vara Rao from Hyderabad, Journalist Gautam Navlakha from New-Delhi and 61-Year old Vernon Gonsalves from Mumbai. (File | Agencies)

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday directed the Maharashtra government to submit before it the charge sheet filed against arrested rights activists before a Pune court in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it wanted to see the "charges" against the accused and asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, to submit before it by December 8 the charge sheet filed by the state police in a special court in Pune.

The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, was hearing an appeal of the state government against a Bombay High Court order refusing to extend the time limit of 90 days for filing the probe report.

The bench has now posted the appeal for further hearing on December 11.

Earlier the apex court had stayed the Bombay High Court order.

Recently, the Bombay High Court had set aside the lower court's order allowing extension of time to police to file its probe report against the rights activists.

Earlier, the apex court had refused to interfere with the arrest of five rights activists by the Maharashtra Police in connection with the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and declined to appoint a SIT for probe into their arrest.

ALSO READMaharashtra to withdraw majority of cases filed during Maratha agitation, Bhima Koregaon violence

The Pune Police had arrested lawyer Surendra Gadling, Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, Dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale, activist Mahesh Raut and Kerala native Rona Wilson in June for their alleged links with Maoists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The arrests had followed raids at their residences and offices in connection with the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31 last year, which, the police had claimed, had led to violence at Bhima Koregaon the next day.

The Maharashtra government had on October 25 moved the apex court challenging the Bombay High Court order by which the extension of time granted to state police to conclude probe in the violence case was set aside.

Earlier, lawyer Nishant Katneshwar, appearing for the Maharashtra government, had told the top court that if the high court order is not stayed then accused in the violence case would become entitled for grant of statutory bail for want of non-filing of charge sheet within the stipulated period.

Under the UAPA, a charge sheet must be filed within 90 days of arrest.

However, the prosecutor can file a report before the trial court, explaining the reasons for the delay, and seek more time.

If satisfied, the court can extend the time by 90 days.

ALSO READBhima-Koregaon Case: Police seek more time to charge sheet Sudha Bharadwaj, others

In the present case, the Pune sessions court had granted the police the additional 90 days, following an application from the investigating officer (IO) and written submissions by an assistant commissioner of police (ACP).

Gadling had challenged this, saying the report and the submissions came from the police, not the prosecutor.

Under the Act, the report should be filed by the prosecutor, he said.

The petition filed in the top court by the state government said the investigating officer had filed an application in the trial court under his signature giving reasons for an extension of time on August 30, 2018.

"On the very same day, the public prosecutor submitted her report/application carving out the grounds for extension of time. The public prosecutor, by way of abundant precaution, took the signature of the investigating officer. But the High Court was carried away by the fact of signature of the investigating officer and arrived at a conclusion that the report/application was not by the public prosecutor," the plea had said.

It had also said that the high court should not have been carried away by the fact of mentioning of names of parties in detail.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp