Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the country to produce a relevant process record of the Persama Pune court from 2018 when the extension was given to the police to submit a chargesheet in the case of Parishad Bharadwaj accused.
The case is that the court court which gives an extension for chargesheet submission is ‘not a designated special court judge’ as required, therefore incompetent, and his orders are invalid, the results are entitled to the default bail law.
Bharadwaj, an activist, and lawyer, was arrested on August 28, 2018, for allegedly being a Maoist, submitting a high court petition for the default guarantee.
Such a bail is given, when the chargesheet in this case is not submitted in a legal period based on the criminal procedure code (CRPC) unless the extension is given by the court.
In this case, 90 days.
His advice Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy submitted details received under RTI law from the HC registry, stating that the session of judging KD Vadane, on November 26, 2018, had provided an extension of 90 days from Pune Police sought by Pupe.
, only district judges and additional sessions in Pune and were not appointed as a special judge by the state government under the 22 Act of Nia, 2008 for the period January 2018 to July 2019.
At a virtual session on Tuesday before A Bench of Judge SS Shinde And NJ Jamadar said the judge was ‘not authorized’ as a special judge when he was not appointed as one.
He said even replies by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which later, in January 2020 took over as a prosecutor for this case, did not deny his argument.
The court postponed the trial on the Bharadwaj Petition to enable him to verify the information provided by his advice related to Pune Judge.
Chaudhry proposed that if RTI information was found right, it would not only be detention of Bharadwaj but accused of eight others in this case would be considered illegal.
The state has not submitted the answer, and Chaudhry said now that the last trial has begun in this issue, the state cannot be forced to submit one now because they have a broad time and ‘enough notification’ to be submitted.
It speaks a lot so the country has not submitted a reply, he said.
Part 11 of Nia Act is in the ‘Heart of Arguments’ said Chaudhry.
This section provides that a special court will be formed by a notification of official sheets, and is led by a judge appointed by the central government as recommended by the Chairperson of the High Court.
“It cannot be said that special judges and judges sessions are the same,” he added.
The action is also below section 22 gives the state with the power to form a special court for the court of violations, if a special court is not designated as provided.
He said there were two questions, one was whether Judge Pune had been appointed under the laws of Nia either by the state or center, and two, whether on that date or not, the state has pointed to a special judge under the part 22.
The HC was directed towards the country “Produce relevant records relating to the applicant,” and tell the prosecutor Deepak Thaka, “We will not let you submit a reward now.
“HC posted this problem for further hearing.