E-Paper
Bail application of activists in Elgar Parishad case legally untenable: Prosecution
On July 6, the activists had filed the bail application citing that a competent court had not taken cognisance of the offence and the police did not file the chargesheet before a JMFC court within 180 days.
The default bail application of nine activists arrested by the Pune police in connection with the Elgar Parishad case is not legally tenable before the court and deserved to be rejected, stated public prosecutor Ujjwala Pawar in her written say before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) PS Jondhale.
On July 6, the activists had filed the bail application citing that a competent court had not taken cognisance of the offence and the police did not file the chargesheet before a JMFC court within 180 days.
Pawar filed her written submission on August 6, which stated, “The present application is nothing, but another desperate attempt to get bail. It may not be out of place to mention that the order of extending remand by the special court was challenged and the matter had reached the apex court, but ultimately the order passed by the sessions court was upheld. The apex court confirmed the order of the sessions court extending the time of investigation and therefore, upheld the jurisdiction of the district court in respect of the order under Section 43-D (2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.”
The submission further added, “While setting aside the impugned order of the High Court, the apex court held that since the chargesheet has been filed, the accused are not entitled for default bail, but they can seek relief of regular bail from trial court if so advised, which would be decided on its own merits by the trial court. In view of these observations, the present accused are not entitled to claim relief under Section 167 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with Section 43 (D) (2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.”
Pawar also stated, “It is submitted that the district and sessions court as well as the special court is empowered to take cognisance without there being an order of a committal as contemplated under Section 193 of the CrPC 1973. It is therefore submitted that when there is an express provision in the special act empowering the special court to take cognisance of an offence with the accused being committed, it cannot be said that taking cognisance of an offence by the district court/ special court in violation of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the present application does not have any substance and deserves to be rejected,” it stated and the say ended with a plea that the application be rejected with costs.
