Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ has set aside the Bombay High Court decision refusing the Maharashtra Police a ninety-day extension to file the charge-sheet under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 against the human rights activists in Bhima Koregaon violence case.
Background of the case:
The activists Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Rona Wilson, Professor Shoma Sen and Sudhir Dhawale were arrested after an FIR was lodged alleging that members of the ‘Kabir Kala Manch’, under the head ‘Bhima Koregaon Shouryadin Prerna Abhiyan’, held a meeting of the Elgar Parishad, where active members of CPI (Maoist) supposedly raised inflammatory slogans and engaged in certain other allied activities, with the intention to conspire, incite and abet the commission of terrorist acts and other unlawful activities by using violent means, thus, promoting enmity between different groups, which ultimately culminated 2 in the break-out of violent riots on 1.1.2018, at a place popularly known as Bhima Koregaon, where a large population of people was said to have gathered to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the battle at Bhima Koregaon.
Alleged non-compliance of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967:
On the question that whether the necessary ingredients of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the said Act were set out in the application for extension of a period of 90 days, for further investigation and filing of charge-sheet in the said crime, the Court explained that there are certain requirements that need to be fulfilled, for its proper application of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b). These are as under:
- It has not been possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days.
- A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor.
- Said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days.
- Satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the Public Prosecutor.
After perusing the material placed before it, the Court said that it cannot accept the argument that the material set out in the document does not meet with the requirements of the proviso, insofar as the reasons for seeking extension for the period of investigation are concerned. It, however, said that there is no doubt that the report/application of the public prosecutor, setting out the reasons for extension of 90 days of custody to complete investigation leaves something to be desired.
It was, however, noticed:
“The first document, purporting to be the application of the IO, contains the reasons for such extended period of investigation but the second document details out the grounds in extenso and cannot be said to be only a mere reproduction of what is stated in the first document. It cannot, thus, be said that there has been complete absence of application of mind by the public prosecutor. … Undoubtedly the request of an IO for extension of time is not a substitute for the report of the public prosecutor but since we find that there has been, as per the comparison of the two documents, an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him, the infirmities in the form should not entitle the respondents to the benefit of a default bail when in substance there has been an application of mind.”
The Court, hence, set aside the Bombay High Court order and held that the respondents would not be entitled to the benefit of default bail. The Court, however, clarified that since charge-sheet has been filed, the observations made in the present order wouldn’t affect the right of accused to seek regular bail.
[State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 188, decided on 13.02.2019]