The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved judgment on a challenge raised by the Maharashtra government against a Bombay High Court decision to refuse the State Police a 90-day extension to complete its investigation and file charge sheet against lawyer Surendra Gadling and others accused of Maoist links in the aftermath of the Bhima-Koregaon violence.
The High Court order, on October 24, had opened the window for Gadling, Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen, activists Sudhir Dhawale and Mahesh Raut and Rona Wilson to seek default bail.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S.K. Kaul heard senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the State submit that the case involved links to "armed organisations and banned outfits" and was too serious for grant of bail.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising said the trajectory of the police investigation against the accused shows a tendency for "ever-greening", that is, a new case is slapped on them by the State when there is a speck of hope to get bail in an existing case.
They were arrested on June 6 by the Pune Police and a case was registered against them under the various provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code.
The petition argued that under Section 43-D (2) of the UAPA Act, the trial court may, on the report of the public prosecutor, extend the detention of the accused for another 90 days.
On September 2, the trial court had allowed an extension of 90 days, following which Mr. Gadling and the others moved the high court, which set aside the trial court order.
The State government argued that the high court resorted to a “pedantic view rather than resorting to a pragmatic view”. The High Court had concluded that the report for the 90-day extension of detention was filed before the Sessions Judge by the case investigating officer instead of the public prosecutor as required by law.
The State submitted in the apex court that the high court got “carried away” by a reference made by the Sessions Judge that the application for extension was “filed by investigating officer”.
