Bombay High Court seeks NIA, State response to Sudha Bharadwaj default bail application

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday sought responses from the National investigation Agency (NIA) and the State of Maharashtra in the application filed by Sudha Bharadwaj, accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case, seeking default bail..The application was filed on the ground 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 was entitled to default bail..The contention was that the Pune Sessions Judge KD Vadane had extended Bharadwaj's detention for 90 days on the prosecution's plea under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 seeking additional time to file chargesheet in November 2018.However, it is argued that Judge Vadane was not competent to do so and lacked jurisdiction as he was not a designated judge under Section 11 or 22 (Power of Central or state government to constitute special courts) of the NIA Act.The application further stated that since the judge was also not competent to accept the chargesheet or issue process to the accused in the case, the filing of the chargesheet was non-est in law, and that her detention after 90 days was illegal.Along with default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Bharadwaj sought for quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the Judge Vadane extending time for filing of chargesheet and issuing process..A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar directed the NIA and Maharashtra government to respond to the application by July 3, 2021, clarifying that no additional time will be granted. .Bharadwaj was arrested on August 28, 2018 from her house in Faridabad, Haryana and was thereafter placed under house arrest. She had been remanded to judicial custody from November 6, 2018 by Judge Vadane. Subsequently, the Pune police filed an application seeking extension of 90 days for filing of chargesheet. Meanwhile, the period of 90 days for filing chargesheet as per Section 167(2) CrPC expired on November 26, 2018 and Bharadwaj moved the Sessions Court for default bail, which was refused. .A second default bail application was filed in May 2019 which was also rejected by Judge Vadane.Meanwhile, the chargesheet against Bharadwaj came to be filed before the Sessions Court on February 21, 2019, and the same was rejected by Sessions Judge RM Pande..Bharadwaj wrote to the Deputy Registrar of High Court under the Right to Information Act to enquire whether Sessions Judges Vadane and Pande had been appointed as Special judges or Additional Special judges by the Maharashtra government in compliance with the NIA Act.From the replies, Bharadwaj discovered that both the judges had not been appointed as special judges. Conversely, three other judges had been appointed as Special judges by the Maharashtra government.Bharadwaj's submission in the application was that since Sessions Judge Vadane had not been designated as Special judge for trial of NIA cases for the years 2018-19, he had no jurisdiction to deal with any scheduled offences under NIA Act..Sudha Bharadwaj moves Bombay High Court for default bail