Koregaon Bhima-Elgar Parishad case: Pune police moves SC for extension of chargesheet filling time

New Delhi / Pune: NP NEWS 24 ONLINE – After the Bombay High Court on Wednesday set aside Pune district court order of granting 90 days extension to file charge sheet in the Elgar Parishad case, the Pune city police today moved the Supreme Court. The petition is scheduled for hearing on Monday.

The police have informed the court the accused advocate Surendra Gadling and others are being prosecuted for a very serious offence that they have provoked terrorism and responsible for communal tension in the State of Maharashtra. Due to their unlawful activities, violence occurred at Bhima-Koregaon and they have connections with the Communist Party of India (Mao), the banned organization.

[amazon_link asins=’B01HQ4O058,B07B8PCNYM,B01N9QZ0TR’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’143cc0e1-d827-11e8-86e6-a7450ce8d76c’]

Elgar Parishad was organised on December 31, 2017, at Shaniwarwada, Pune, a day before the violence at Koregaon-Bhima on January 1, 2018, during the commemoration of 200 years of a war there.

The arrested accused include Gadling (49) of Nagpur, Sudhir Pralhad Dhawale (50) of Mumbai, Rona Jacob Wilson (47) of New Delhi,
Prof Dr. Shoma Sen (58) of Nagpur and Mahesh Sitaram Raut (31) of Nagpur. They are currently lodged in Yerwada Central Jail.

[amazon_link asins=’8192910962,1542040469,0143442295′ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’policenama100-21′ marketplace=’IN’ link_id=’3b378ac5-d827-11e8-8455-3bdd51990187′]

According to police, the accused persons are facing prosecution under sections 153A, 505(1)(B), 117, 120B r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Most of the accused are arrested in the month of June 2018 on different dates and at present, they are in judicial custody. None of them is on bail. As per section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigation of the offence is to be completed within 90 days if the investigation relates to the offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years.

The accused persons had claimed that a report seeking an extension of time should be filed by the Public Prosecutor and the Court after taking into account the said report, may extend the period by a further 90 days i.e., up to 180 days. In the present case, the application was moved by the police officer and no report was submitted by the Public Prosecutor. Thus, there is no compliance of section 43-D of the UAPA.

The police had informed the High Court that the investigating officer ACP Shivaji Pawar, as well as District Government Pleader Ujjwala Pawar, had submitted the application for extension of time to file charge sheet, which was accepted the by the Pune district court which is hearing the matter.

However, HC judge Mridula Bhatkar on Wednesday dismissed the police plea and set aside district court order giving 90 days more time to police.

In their petition before the Supreme Court, police stated, “The High Court has resorted to a pedantic view rather than resorting to a pragmatic view. The provisions to section 43-D(2)(b) specifically provides that the Court should be satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. The investigating officer has filed a report of the application under his signature giving reasons for an extension of time on 30.08.2018. On the very same day i.e on 30.08.2018, the public prosecutor submitted her report/application carving out the grounds for extension of time. The public prosecutor, by way of abundant precaution, took the signature of the investigating officer. But the High Court was carried away by the fact of the signature of the investigating officer and arrived at a conclusion that the report/application was not by the public prosecutor. The High Court was carried away by the first paragraph of the order dated 02.09.2018, passed by the Special Judge which mentions, “this application is filed by Investigating officer in Crime No. 04/2018 of Vishrambag Police Station for grant of extension of 90 days after 03.09.2018 for further investigation and filing of charge sheet as per the provisions of section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967”. Had the High Court considered the title of the report/application, the High Court would not have passed the impugned order. The report/application mentions, “application under section 43(D) of UAP Act for extension of a period of 90 days for further investigation & filing of charge sheet in the said crime”. Whether it was necessary for the State of Maharashtra to challenge the contents of paragraphs No. 1 of the order dated 02.09.2018 is a pertinent question. The High Court should not have been carried away by the fact of mentioning of names of the parties in detail. It appears that the more the State took precaution to file the report/application for extension of time to complete the investigation, the more the High Court considered it as improper and thereby passed the impugned order.”