skip to content
Advertisement
Premium

Bombay HC judge recuses from hearing Anand Teltumbde’s discharge plea, other Elgaar Parishad matters

Anand Teltumbde has been out on bail in the Elgaar Parishad case since November 18, 2022.

Anand TeltumbdeTeltumbde's lawyer will be required to make a request to the Bombay High Court for a hearing by an alternate or another bench. (File Image)

Justice Sarang V Kotwal of the Bombay High Court Thursday recused himself from hearing an appeal filed by academician Anand Teltumbde against the special court’s rejection of his discharge application along with other Elgaar Parishad case matters.

In May 2024, the special court rejected Teltumbde’s discharge plea stating that the material on record prima facie revealed his involvement in the case. The matter was listed before a division bench of Justices Kotwal and Shriram M Modak on Thursday.

Justice Kotwal said he had heard and decided bail pleas by a few accused in the case in his capacity as a single judge. “In this matter, one of us (Sarang V Kotwal, J, sitting as a single Judge, had decided three bail applications (by Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves) wherein various provisions of law were discussed. Therefore, propriety demands that the matter be heard on all aspects by a different bench. In this case, Sarang V Kotwal, J is recusing from hearing this Appeal and other matters arising out of the 2018 FIR registered with Vishrambaug police station, Pune,” the High Court order noted.

Story continues below this ad

Justice Kotwal had rejected the three bail pleas in October 2019.

The bench directed the High Court Registry not to place the matters arising out of the said First Information Report before the bench of which Justice Kotwal is a member.

Teltumbde’s lawyer will be required to make a request to the Bombay High Court for a hearing by an alternate or another bench.

Teltumbde has been out on bail in the Elgaar Parishad case since November 18, 2022, when he was granted reprieve by a Bombay High Court bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Justice Milind N Jadhav. “The seizure of the incriminating material does not in any manner prima facie lead to draw an inference that appellant has committed or indulged in a ‘terrorist act’ as contemplated under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA),” the HC had observed in its order.

Story continues below this ad

Thereafter, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), which took over the investigation from the Pune police in January 2020, challenged the order in the Supreme Court, which refused to interfere and upheld the HC order.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement
Advertisement