Cannot allow Maharashtra government to file reply since matter substantially heard: Bombay High Court in Sudha Bharadwaj default bail plea

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant more time to the Maharashtra government to respond to the default bail application filed by Bhima Koregaon accused, advocate Sudha Bharadwaj..Chief Public Prosecutor Deepak Thakare had sought time from the court to file a reply to the application. He submitted that since the investigation officer who was responsible for the case, before the National Investigation Agency took over the probe, had been transferred elsewhere, the State needed more time to file its response..A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar, however, asked Bharadwaj's counsel, advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry to commence his submissions. Chaudhry submitted that the State had been given ample opportunities to submit its reply and the fact that they haven't responded so far, made Bharadwaj eligible for relief from the Court. After making his submissions on facts and law, Chaudhry concluded for the day requesting the Court to not permit the State to file a reply. "They do not deserve any further indulgence. Whatever office record should have been placed on record, should have been so, long before. They are not willing to file a reply. Please do not coerce them to file a reply," Chaudhry argued. .Agreeing with Chaudhry's submission, the Court stated that State will not be allowed to file the reply since the matter has been substantially heard..The Court was hearing Bharadwaj's application which assailed two orders passed by the Pune Sessions Judge KD Vadane on the ground that the judge had no jurisdiction to pass the orders.The two orders under challenged were:extension of time for the filing of the chargesheet; andtaking cognizance of the chargesheet against Bharadwaj and seven other accused..Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh pointed out to the case of Saidque & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the Supreme Court was to hear on the issue which was similar to the present petition - whether the term “Court” appearing in Section 43D of UAPA is to seen light of the definition of “Court” appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA Act?He submitted that the Supreme Court was going to consider this issue on July 8, 2021 and hence the Court may consider this aspect before proceeding to hear the application. However the Court asked Chaudhry to make his submissions..Chaudhry contended that Vadane was not a designated special judge under the NIA Act and yet he had passed orders. He explained 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, her detention after 90 days was illegal and hence she was entitled for 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 RM 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..In order to verify the records relied upon by Chaudhry, the Court adjourned the hearing of the matter by two days to call for appropriate records from the High Court registry. Chaudhry requested for a physical hearing subject to approval from all parties to the case.The Court indicated that subject to approval from the Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, the matter will be placed for physical hearing on July 8, 2021.