SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.S. Shinde, N. J. Jamadar, JJ.
Sudha Bharadwaj & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
National Investigation Agency & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Bail Application No. 1458 of 2019, 2024 of 2021, Interim Application No. 376 of 2020
Decided On : 01-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Dr.Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, Payoshi Roy, Advocate, Chandni Chawla, Advocate, Anil C. Singh, Advocate, Sandesh Patil, Advocate, Aditya Thakkar, Advocate, Chintan Shah, Advocate, Smita Thakur, Advocate, Pranav Thakur, Advocate, Vishal Gautam, Advocate, Sudeep Pasbola, Advocate, Barun Kumar, Advocate, Karl Rustomkhan, Advocate, Susan Abraham, Advocate, R. Sathyanarayanan, Advocate, A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate, A.S. Pai, Advocate, S.D. Shinde, Advocate, Akshay Shinde, Advocate, Anil C. Singh, Advocate, Sandesh Patil, Advocate, Aditya Thakkar, Advocate, Chintan Shah, Advocate, Pranav Thakur, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43-D(2) - Bail applications for enlargement on bail due to oversight in jurisdiction by the Additional Sessions Judge in extending detention. (Paras 1, 56 & 119)

(B) Jurisdictional Issue - The court held that the taking cognizance by an incompetent judge does not necessarily nullify all subsequent actions; however, the failure to properly extend detention renders such orders void. (Paras 130, 131 & 144)

Facts of the case:
Various applicants challenged the authority of the Additional Sessions Judge to extend the period of detention and take cognizance without being designated as Special Judges per the NIA Act. Arrests occurred in 2018, and subsequent applications claimed a right to default bail due to improper detention extensions. (Paras 4, 11 & 147)

Findings of Court:
The extension of detention was determined to lack jurisdiction since the Additional Sessions Judge had not been designated as a Special Judge; thus, the detention should not have been extended. The applicants' rights to default bail were upheld. (Paras 119, 144 & 151)

Issues: Whether the extension of detention was lawful given the lack of designation of the presiding judge, and subsequent implications for default bail rights. (Paras 56 & 61)

Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance taken by the wrong court does not affect the charge-sheet validity; however, improper extension of detention rights allows for default bail if conditions are met. (Paras 131 & 134)

Result: The application for default bail of one applicant was granted, while the others seeking to quash detention extensions were denied. (Paras 151 & 152)

Table of Content
1. court's jurisdiction established. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background facts of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. arguments against jurisdiction of court. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
4. responses to applicants' arguments. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. court observations on the filing of fir. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. specifying procedural legal points. (Para 26 , 27)
7. entitlement and rights of the accused. (Para 28 , 29)
8. supreme court's stance on wrongful detention. (Para 30 , 31)
9. key legal rules around bail. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. cognizance and its legal implications. (Para 37 , 40)
11. right to default bail on legal grounds. (Para 41 , 42)
12. clarification of findings based on evidence. (Para 43 , 44)
13. defenses against charges of unlawful activity. (Para 45 , 46)
14. final rulings and decisions. (Para 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - These applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) seek enlargement of the applicants on bail under section 167(2) of the Code read with section 43-D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ( UAPA ) in National Investigation Agency (NIA) Special Case No. 871 of 2020, arising out of frst information report, initially registered with Vishrambaug Police Station, being frst information report No.4 of 2018, on the ground that the learned Judge, who extended the period for investigation under section 43-D(2) of UAPA and took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 120B, 121, 121(A), 124(A), 153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 23 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (the Penal Code) and sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA was not legally empowered to grant such extension and take cognizance.

2. Since the factual backdrop is, by and large, similar and common questions of law arise for consideration, both these applications are determined by this common judgment and order.

3. The background facts leading to these applications can be summarized as under:

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2024 OF 2021:-

Tushar Ramesh Damgude lodged a report on 8th January, 2018 with Vishrambaug Police Station in connection with a programme organized under the banner "Elgar Parishad" at Shanivar Wada, Pune on 31st December, 2017 alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 153A, 505(1)(b), 117 read with 34 of the Penal Code. On 6th March, 2018 an offence punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code came to be added. During the course of investigation, searches were conducted at various places. On 17th May, 2018 the offences punishable under sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA were added. On 28th August 2018, the applicant, P.Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were arrested by the Pune police.

4. The applicant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, Haryana, who granted transit remand for two days. On the very same day, a Habeas Corpus petition was fled on behalf of the applicant, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 701 of 2018 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The applicant was directed to be kept under house arrest under the supervision of Surajkund police. Writ Petition No. 260 of 2018 was fled by Romila Thapar & Others in the Supreme Court. By an order dated 29th August, 2018, the house arrest came to be extended till further orders. Eventually, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 28th September, 2018. However, the interim order was continued for a period of four weeks. The bail application preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court, Pune, on 26th October, 2018.

5. On 27th October, 2018, the applicant was taken into custody by Pune police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (Shri K.D. Vadane), before whom the applicant was produced, remanded the applicant to police custody for ten days.

6. On 22nd November, 2018 the Public Prosecutor fled a report (Exh.33) seeking extension of pe

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top