Elgar Parishad case: Bharadwaj seeks bail claiming illegal detention

While making submissions for Elgar Parishad accused lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj’s default bail, her counsel Yug Choudhary informed the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday that the extension of her 90-day custody granted by the special court to Pune Police in November 2018 was not valid

While making submissions for Elgar Parishad accused lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj’s default bail, her counsel Yug Choudhary informed the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday that the extension of her 90-day custody granted by the special court to Pune Police in November 2018 was not valid.

HT Image

He said that though there was a designated bench to hear matters under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the state had got an extension order from a non-designated judge. In light of this, Bharadwaj’s counsel submitted that her detention of more than a year is illegal.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing the application of the activist, was informed that the accused was illegally detained since her arrest in November 2018 for more than a year. Choudhary submitted that though the Pune Police, which was initially investigating the case had secured an extension of 90 days after filing an incomplete charge sheet, it was not valid. Bharadwaj was arrested under UAPA on August 28, 2018.

Choudhary further submitted that as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was not in the picture at the time, the grievance was against the state, and Bharadwaj’s detention in Byculla women’s prison is illegal and hence, she deserved to be released on default bail. Choudhary drew the attention of the bench to the fact that though Bharadwaj was booked under UAPA, the extension of detention was granted by a judge who was not competent to hear such cases.

Choudhary’s arguments were based on responses received by lawyers under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the HC registry, which stated that sessions judge KD Vadane, who on November 26, 2018, had granted the 90-day extension to Pune Police was only a district and additional sessions judge at Pune and was not appointed as the special judge by the state government under section 22 of the NIA Act, 2008, for the period between January 2018 to July 2019.

However, NIA – represented by advocate Sandesh Patil – opposed the application and said that as the agency had taken over the investigation, the grievance against the state at this stage was not maintainable. Patil also sought time of two weeks to file a reply.

After hearing the submissions the bench directed NIA and the state to file their replies before July 3 and said that it would not allow any more adjournments.

Bharadwaj had approached HC through her daughter last month, seeking bail on medical grounds or for providing medical treatment at a government hospital as she was suffering from various ailments and comorbidities. After the prison authorities got her the requisite treatment, the application had been disposed of.