[Bhima Koregaon] Bombay High Court reserves order in Sudha Bharadwaj default bail plea

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the petition filed by lawyer and Bhima Koregaon accused Sudha Bharadwaj seeking default bail under Code of Criminal Procedure..Bharadwaj had moved the High Court challenging two orders passed by Pune Sessions Judges KD Vadane and RM Pande on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to pass orders in the case.Along with default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Bharadwaj sought quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the Judge Vadane extending time for filing of chargesheet and issuing process..Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry submitted that upon expiry of 90 days of detention, there was no valid or lawful order extending time for the filing of the chargesheet, and hence Bharadwaj is entitled to default bail..Chaudhry relied upon certain replies received from the Deputy Registrar of High Court under the Right to Information Act which stated that Sessions Judges Vadane and Pande had not been appointed as special judges under the NIA Act.Instead, three other judges had been appointed as Special judges by the Maharashtra government..Bombay High Court seeks NIA, State response to Sudha Bharadwaj default bail application .In an earlier hearing, the Bench had enquired whether a sessions judge not designated as a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act could hear cases pertaining to scheduled offences under the Act..Responding to that query, Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni stated that as long as the investigation was not assigned to NIA, the proceedings pertaining to the investigation could continue before the regular courts.His contention was that Special Courts could only hear matters which are being investigated by the NIA.Referring to the amended Section 2 of the UAPA, he submitted that the intention of the legislature was to add Special Courts of the NIA Act along with regular criminal courts for hearing of UAPA offences..Don't bring in new jurisprudence that UAPA offences are to be tried by NIA Special Courts: State to Bombay High Court in Sudha Bharadwaj case.Amongst other grounds for opposing Bharadwaj's petition, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh had argued that there was a binding judgment of the Bombay High Court that NIA court comes into the picture only after the NIA takes over the investigation of a case. .Both the respondents argued that there was no prejudice caused to Bharadwaj even if the orders were allegedly passed by a court not having jurisdiction.In conclusion, he submitted that with binding legislation and orders of the Court, the State police had no option but to approach the Sessions judge as had been done in the present case. .Responding to the arguments, Chaudhry stated that the issue under challenge was not about illegal remand order but of the jurisdiction of the court which goes to the core of any case. Concluding his submissions, Chaudhry argued that jurisdictions of the court were created by statutes, or by nature of offences, and never depending on the investigation agency. He also referred to the case of Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab to point out that the first court in a case was the Magistrate Court, and there was no reason to approach the Sessions Court..In a short rejoinder to Chaudhry's submission, AG argued that it is necessary to read the judgment as a whole and not in parts. "You cannot read two sentences from one paragraph, and two sentences from another paragraph and say 'balle balle' I have succeeded in freeing (people in) naxalite activities," he said.