New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Sep 19, 2019-Thursday



Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Thursday, Sep 19, 2019

Bhima Koregaon case: Special court rejects plea challenging its jurisdiction on bail for 9 accused

cities Updated: Sep 13, 2019 20:56 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent

PUNE Special Judge Ravindra M Pande, on Friday, rejected the plea of nine accused arrested in connection with the Bhima Koregaon case and alleged Maoist links, challenging the special court’s jurisdiction to take direct cognisance of the offence and to deny them bail.

Advocate Surendra Gadling and eight others are currently under judicial custody at the Yerawada Central Jail.

Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreria and Sudha Bharadwaj, have been arrested in connection with violence post the Bhima Koregaon observance on January 1, 2018, in which one person was killed and several injured.

According to police, the accused had organised te Elgaar Parishad on December 31, 2017, provoking the violence at Bhima Koregaon, the next day.

Judge Pandey in his order stated: “I do not find the submissions of the accused in this behalf can be accepted. The provisions of section 10 of the NIA Act provides that nothing provided under NIA Act shall affect the power of the state government to investigate and prosecute any schedule offence or other offence under any law for the time being in force. That means, as per the provisions of section 10 of the NIA Act, the state government is entitled to investigation of the scheduled offence under the act. As said in connection of the accused, in this behalf also does not appear to be acceptable.

“Therefore, in view of all the above discussion, if the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are considered with the provisions of the section 167 (2) of the Crpc read with section 43 (D) 2 (b) of the UAPA Act, section 193 of the Crpc, section 2 (D) of the UAPA Act, section 2 (g),10,16,22(3) of the NIA Act, are read together, then none of the contention of the accused can be accepted and the accused can be said to be entitled for bail on grounds taken by them in the said application.”

“In view of this, I find that the application of the accused for bail under section 167 (2) of CrPC as contended and for other grounds mentioned in the application is liable to be rejected,” the order stated.

The accused had filed the bail application under section 167 (2) of the CrPC read with section 43 (D) (2) of the Uapa Act on ground that the accused are in custody for over 180 days without cognisance being taken of the offence.

First Published: Sep 13, 2019 20:56 IST