Bombay HC dismisses default bail pleas of 5 accused in Elgaar Parishad case

The case dates back to the Elgaar Parishad event held in Shaniwar Wada in Pune on December 31, 2017, following which violent clashes broke out the next day between Maratha and Dalit groups near Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra. The police alleged that the violence was instigated by “inflammatory speeches” given at the Elgaar event in Pune.

They had filed appeals in the HC in 2022 and 2023, seeking to quash the special NIA court order of June, 2022, which had rejected relief to them

A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Shyam C Chandak had on May 3 concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on pleas by Gadling and others, which it passed on Tuesday.

The first chargesheet was filed in November 2018 after the completion of the 90-day stipulated period, and the additional chargesheet was filed in February 2019. The NIA took over the investigation in January 2020, and the special NIA court in Mumbai eventually heard the case.

The five had said that in August 2018, the Pune Police had sought an extension to file the chargesheet, which was granted in September that year, but the procedure required under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was not followed and the same was ‘against the law.’

Senior advocate Anand Grover and advocate R Sathyanarayanan for the appellants submitted that multiple applications were filed before Pune judge, seeking a default bail. However, the September 27, 2018, application filed under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 167(2) claiming incompetence of the magistrate was not considered in the HC’s 2021 judgment, they argued.

In the present appeals before the High Court, the appellants stated that they were entitled to seek a default bail plea soon after the expiry of the 90-day period, and that no chargesheet was filed at the time they had applied for the bail.

However, Additional Solicitor General Deveng Vyas and advocate Sandesh Patil for NIA argued that the issue of competence of the judge and extension of chargesheet was covered in HC’s judgement and the same was not challenged before the Supreme Court. Vyas claimed that present pleas were an attempt to create confusion over various proceedings and the same should be dismissed.