MUMBAI: The Maharashtra government Tuesday urged the Bombay High Court to dismiss the plea filed by arrested lawyer Surendra Gadling, in which the latter challenged the extension of his custody.
Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, who appeared for the state, told the court that the Pune Police was yet to complete its probe due to the voluminous data and electronic evidence it had to sift through, hence, the trial court was justified in granting additional time to police to file the charge sheet and consequently extending Gadling's custody period.
The Pune Police had arrested Gadling along with Head of English Department of the Nagpur University Shoma Sen, Dalit activist Sudhir Dhawale, activist Mahesh Raut and Kerala native Rona Wilson, in June this year.
The police had booked them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), claiming that all of them had links with "Maoists".
They were arrested following raids at their houses and offices in connection with an event to commemorate the Battle of Bhima Koregaon on December 31 last year.
However, Gadling approached the high court earlier this month claiming that keeping him under extended custody, and refusing to release him on bail was illegal.
He claimed that his custody was illegal since the prosecution had failed to follow due procedure while seeking extension of time for filing the charge sheet against him and others in the case.
The UAPA mandates that the prosecuting agency in a case must file its charge sheet within 90 days from the arrest of a person.
However, if there is a delay on a valid ground, the public prosecutor in the case is permitted to file a report before the trial court explaining the reasons for the delay, and seek more time.
The Act mandates that if the trial court is satisfied with such a report, it can extend the time for filing the charge sheet up to 180 days.
In the present case, however, the dispute between the parties over the extension of time is because of a technicality the 'report' that was considered by the lower court in Pune while granting the extension of time to the prosecution was an application and a written submission made by the concerned assistant commissioner of police (ACP), and the investigating officer (IO) in the case respectively.
The arguments seeking the extension were also made by the IO and the ACP before the lower court.
Therefore, Gadling approached the high court arguing that the above reports cannot be considered the same as the public prosecutor's report.
Kumbhakoni, however, argued that the report mentioned under the Act must not be taken too "literally" by the HC.
He further argued that the police reports in the present case also bore the signature of the concerned public prosecutor and therefore, must be considered a valid document for granting the extension.
Justice Mridula Bhatkar, who is presiding over the case, questioned why the lower court had permitted the IO and the ACP to argue independently when the prosecutor was present in the court.
She noted that the law mandated that the prosecutor assists the courts in all the cases, unless something specific was required of the IOs or other parties in any case.
"The lower court committed an illegality in permitting the IO and the ACP to argue independently," she said.
However, she is likely to pronounce her verdict Wednesday on whether the reports of the two police officers can be considered a valid document for extending the time for the police for filing the charge sheet.