E-Paper
Elgar Parishad case: Special NIA court erred in allowing 90-day extension of custody: Teltumbde to Bombay HC
Dr Anand Teltumbde, one of the accused in the Elgar Parishad case who is currently lodged at Taloja jail, filed an application before the Bombay high court (HC)
Dr Anand Teltumbde, one of the accused in the Elgar Parishad case who is currently lodged at Taloja jail, filed an application before the Bombay high court (HC) on Friday seeking setting aside of the July 12 order of the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court which allowed an extension of his detention by another 90 days.
The application challenges the NIA court order on the grounds that the extension granted was not as per the norms laid down under section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, and hence, the extension should be set aside and the special court should be ordered to grant bail to Dr Teltumbde. As the bench that was to hear the application on Friday recused, the application is expected to be heard next week.
According to the application filed by advocate R Satyanarayanan, after Dr Teltumbde had surrendered on April 14, as per a Supreme Court (SC) direction, he had been arrested and detained at Taloja jail. On July 12, Teltumbde completed 90 days in custody but as the investigation had not been completed, the state had applied for an extension of his custody before the NIA court.
The state had also sought extension of custody of co-accused Gautam Navlakha in the application.
In its application, the state had averred that as the draft of the charge sheet was voluminous due to the Covid pandemic, it had not been able to file it before the appropriate court. The state application further said that interrogation of witnesses and perusal of forensic evidence was also pending due to the lockdown. Hence it needed an extension of Dr Teltumbde and Navlakha’s custody, based on section 43(D) of the UAPA Act.
Section 43(D) of the UAPA Act states that extension of custody for 90 days can be sought on the grounds of progress in the investigation and compelling reasons showing a need for extension of custody.
Dr Teltumbde’s application states that the special NIA court did not heed the information provided by the state in its application, which said that “sufficient evidence has been being collected”. Nor did the court abide by an SC order which states that a person cannot be detained beyond 90 days if investigators are unable to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet within the stipulated period.
Dr Teltumbde’s application further states that as his custody would not contribute towards the recording of statements of witnesses or receiving forensic reports, the special court should not have granted extension of 90 days.
