Bharadwaj says Pune judge who denied bail not of correct rank
Sudha Bharadwaj’s counsel Yug Chaudhry submitted that the judge who granted the 90-day extension of her custody to Pune Police in 2018 was not competent and that the order was illegal.
The Bombay high court on Tuesday directed the Maharashtra government to furnish records of the default bail plea of activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, who was arrested in August 2018 in connection with the Elgar Parishad case, and has been lodged in Mumbai’s Byculla women’s prison since then.
After Bharadwaj’s counsel Yug Chaudhry submitted that the judge who granted the 90-day extension of her custody to Pune Police in 2018 was not competent and that the order was illegal, the court adjourned the hearing till Wednesday so that the information about the judge could be verified by the court registry.
The counsel told the court that if the contention was correct, not only Bharadwaj’s detention, but that of the eight other accused in the case – Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling and Mahesh Raut – would also be illegal.
The division bench of justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar, while hearing Bharadwaj’s bail application, was informed by Choudhry that the judge who heard the application of Pune Police for the extension of Bharadwaj’s custody was not a designated special judge under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, and hence, could not hear matters pertaining to scheduled offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Choudhry also submitted that based on the responses received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from HC registry, it was found that judge KD Vadane, who had granted the 90-day extension of Bharadwaj’s detention on November 26, 2018, was only a district and additional sessions judge at Pune, though he had claimed to be a special judge. Choudhry submitted that Vadane had signed two orders, one as a special judge and the second as special UAPA judge.
Citing the RTI response, Choudhry told the court that between January 2018 and July 2019, Vadane was not appointed as special judge under section 22 of NIA Act. Choudhry submitted that Vadane also could not have authorised the supplementary charge sheet filed by the Pune Police in February 2019.
The court was then informed that the RTI responses showed that though there were other NIA judges at the sessions court in Pune, police had placed the matter before Vadane.
Choudhry expressed his dismay and said, “This goes to the very heart of the judicial system. With utmost humility, the bedrock of judiciary is shaken when a non-designated judge calls himself a designated judge... And people are languishing in custody under his orders…”
After hearing the submissions and on Choudhry’s insistence that the state should not be allowed to file a reply as it had not done so even after being given sufficient time, the court directed chief public prosecutor Deepak Thakare to produce relevant records in relation to the petition.
The court, which is likely to hear the matter on Thursday, said it would ask the HC registry to verify the information provided by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, Gadling has filed an appeal against the rejection of his temporary bail application by the special NIA court last September. Gadling had sought bail to conduct the last rites of his mother, but he was denied the same. On Tuesday, Gadling’s lawyer, senior advocate Indira Jaising, informed the bench of justice Shinde that on the first death anniversary of the accused’s mother on August 13, he should be granted temporary bail. HC will hear the appeal on July 22.
