Maharashtra govt. says pleas by Bhima Koregaon accused are ‘fallacious’
[ad_1]
The Maharashtra authorities on Thursday informed the Bombay High Court that the plea difficult the order of extending the interval of submitting a chargesheet within the Bhima Koregaon violence case by the Sessions Court is “fallacious”.
Advocate General (A-G) Ashutosh Kumbhakoni was arguing earlier than a Division Bench of Justice S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar. The courtroom was listening to a petition filed by Sudha Bharadwaj together with different accused within the case alleging that the Pune Sessions Court Judge K.D. Wadane was not authorised to take cognisance of the supplementary chargesheet and to grant an extension to Pune Police for submitting the chargesheet.
Mr. Kumbhakoni identified that on May 17, 2018, provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) had been added to the case, and on January 24, 2020, the Centre handed an order to switch the probe to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
He mentioned the petitioners’ rivalry is that the particular NIA courtroom comes into the image after the UAPA is added. But simply because a Special Court has been constituted doesn’t imply the NIA courtroom will come into the image within the case, he added.
The Bench requested: Special Courts have been constituted, then why not take the case earlier than the Special Courts? The A-G replied that the Special Courts come into the image solely after the NIA comes into the image. He additionally mentioned the particular NIA courtroom had no jurisdiction to try to determine any pre-trial proceedings, and beneath the UAPA, the prosecution has no possibility however to go to the Sessions Court.
The arguments will proceed on July 23.
In the final listening to, advocate Yug Chaudhry representing Ms. Bharadwaj, who’s lodged on the Byculla jail, had identified that Mr. Wadane handed two vital orders, the primary of which was on November 26, 2018, when he granted an extension of 180 days’ time interval to the Pune police for submitting the chargesheet within the case, versus the mandated 90 days in response to the Code of Criminal Procedure. He mentioned that on December 21, 2019, Mr. Wadane had obtained the chargesheet, taken cognisance of it, and issued processes.
Mr. Chaudhry additionally mentioned that Mr. Wadane had acted outdoors of his jurisdiction and was not authorised to take action.
[ad_2]
