Bhima Koregaon: SC to hear Maharashtra govt's plea against Bombay HC order

The Maharashtra government on Thursday approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order that refused to grant more time to the Pune Police for filing charge sheet against activists arrested in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph posted the matter for hearing on October 29.

Advocate Nishant Katneshwar, appearing for the Maharashtra government, mentioned the matter for urgent hearing saying if the High Court order is not stayed then accused would become entitled to grant of statutory bail due to non-filing of charge sheet within the stipulated period.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday had quashed the trial court's order to grant more time to conclude the investigation and file the charge sheet in the case.

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

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

A charge sheet must be filed within 90 days of arrest under the UAPA, however, the prosecutor can file a report before the trial court, explaining the reasons for a delay, and seek more time. The trial court, if satisfied, can extend the time by 90 days.

The petition filed by the state government said in the present case, the Additional Session Judge, Pune had granted the police the additional 90 days, after an application/ report was filed by the investigating officer and written submissions by an assistant commissioner of police.

Challenging the trial court's order Gadling had moved the High Court saying the report and the submissions came from the police, not the prosecutor, however, under the Act, the report should be filed by the prosecutor.

The state government, approaching the apex court against High Court order, contended that the investigating officer had filed an application in the trial court under his signature giving reasons for the extension of time on August 30, 2018.

"On the very same day i.e on August 30 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," stated the petition filed by the Maharashtra government in the top court.

"The High Court should not have been carried away by the fact of mentioning of names of the parties in detail. It appears that the more the state took precaution to file the report/application for extension of time to complete the investigation, the more the High Court considered it as improper and thereby passed the impugned order," it added seeking quashing of High Court order.