[Bhima Koregaon] Bombay High Court seeks response from NIA, State on plea by 3 accused for default bail

Three accused in the Bhima Koregaon case of 2018 have moved the Bombay High Court seeking review of the judgment dated December 1, 2022 refusing default bail to them. [P Varavara Rao & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].The three accused, P Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves, have submitted that the present review application arose on the account of certain factual error in the judgment and if such error is not rectified then the same will lead to "gross miscarriage of justice".In the plea filed through advocate R Satyanarayanan, the accused sought correction of the error, and consequently, prayed that they be granted bail. .A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar granted the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and State of Maharashtra, two weeks time to file their reply and posted the matter for hearing after that..Eight accused had been refused bail by the High Court on December 1 while another co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj had been granted bail.The High Court in its December 1 order, while demarcating Bharadwaj's plea from the other eight, had noted that Bharadwaj’s application for default bail was pending on the date the application for extension of time to file the chargesheet was made by the Pune Police."In sum and substance, the High Court came to the conclusion that the applicants had not availed the right by filing default bail application after expiry of initial period of 90 days and before filing of chargesheet," the review application stated. The accused pointed out that they had also filed default bail applications and the order based on which Bharadwaj was granted bail, was a common order which also included their application.They contended that they stood pari materia with Bharadwaj and are entitled to same reliefs as granted to her..The present application came to be filed after the High Court refused to intervene in a plea by eight accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence case seeking the rectification. The Court held that the relief which the 8 applicants were seeking could not be granted through a precipe (application tendered across to the judge and not filed) and the proper procedure of filing review application has to be followed.