The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by three accused Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves in the Bhima Koregaon case seeking review of the High Court's December 2021 judgment refusing them default bail [P Varavara Rao & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.]..A Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar reserved its order after hearing both sides at length. During the course of the hearing, the Bench asked the counsel for the applicant to point out the actual factual error which the accused claimed had been ignored by the Bench. "When you say that there is a factual error on the part of the court, then it is your job to show the facts and then point out how those facts had been pleaded and argued and how the Court has still not considered it," Justice Jamadar remarked..Eight accused had been refused bail by the High Court on December 1 while another co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj had been granted bail.The High Court in its December 1 order, while demarcating Bharadwaj's plea from the other eight, had noted that Bharadwaj’s application for default bail was pending on the date the application for extension of time to file the chargesheet was made by the Pune Police.In the present plea filed through advocate R Satyanarayanan, the three accused Rao, Ferreira and Gonsalves sought correction of the error and consequently, prayed that they be granted bail.They submitted in the plea that the review application arose on the account of a factual error in the judgment and if that error is not rectified, it will lead to "gross miscarriage of justice"..Advocate Sudeep Pasbola contended that the reason for granting bail to Bharadwaj was on the basis a common order which also included names of Gonsalves, Rao and Ferreira.He submitted that the statutory bail of all the accused first came to be rejected by Pune Sessions Court by a common order. The date of the arrest of the accused was common and hence they were all at par.He argued that the observations made against the accused if not rectified will violate their rights to seek bail subsequently. "The Court has taken a view in the order, that the three accused have not applied for bail and hence were not granted bail. This needs to be corrected as I cannot avail the order, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. There is a finding against me, which will hamper my rights. An application was made and for the three accused also denied," Pasbola argued. .Advocate Sandesh Patil appearing for the National Investigation Agency, argued that the review petition is barred by law as the prayer sought alteration or review of the final judgment.He argued that the prayer asked for alteration of the observation made final by the High Court after due verification of records and hearing."Whenever the court is sitting in review, there has to be an error in apparent. It took a long time for my friend (Pasbola) to show that what was pointed out and what was not (during the hearing)," Patil said. He also claimed that the accused was trying to bring in a new case and blame the Court when their entire pleading in the application was defective and insufficient."Entire judgement is woven in such a way that if the applicants' prayers are granted then it will lead to substitution of view in the judgment and not correction in the judgment," Patil contended.