Bhima Koregaon: Supreme Court reserves verdict on bail pleas of Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the bail applications filed by two accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira [Vernon vs State of Maharashtra and anr]..A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia concluded hearing arguments today, and reserved its order. .BackgroundIn May last year, the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, including Gonsalves and Ferreira, filed pleas before the Supreme Court seeking a review of the Bombay High Court's December 2021 judgment refusing them default bail.The accused contended that there was an error in the judgment and, consequently, prayed that they be granted bail.Eight accused persons were refused bail by the High Court on December 1, 2021, while another co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj was granted bail. The High Court, in its December 1 order, had distinguished Bharadwaj's plea from the other eight and noted that Bharadwaj’s application for default bail was pending when an application was made by the Pune Police seeking an extension of time to file the chargesheet.As far as the others accused were concerned, on May 4, 2022, the High Court stated that there was no factual error in the judgment as claimed and rejected the pleas, leading to the present case before the Supreme Court.In August 2022, the Supreme Court asked the special NIA court to decide on framing of charges against Gonsalves within 3 months, while refusing to grant any interim relief at the time. Govsalves' bail plea was, however, kept pending before the top court.The Court had also directed the special court to segregate Gonsalves' trial from that of the other accused who are absconding.Supreme Court judge, Justice Dipankar Datta (formerly the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court) had recused from hearing the present bail applications earlier..Arguments in briefSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitors General SV Raju and KM Nataraj, and advocate Kanu Agrawal appeared for the respondents before the Supreme Court. They argued that the charges were serious, and the case cannot be compared with that of Anand Teltumbde who bail was upheld by the top court earlier.Long period in custody cannot be a ground to show leniency to terror-accused, it was emphasised. Further, any delay in the trial was not attributable to the National Investigation Agency (NIA); rather it was due to the fact that multiple accused kept filing discharge applications.Senior Advocates for the appellants, Rebecca John and R Basant, pointed out that the accused had been incarcerated for over five years with charges yet to be framed and the trial yet to begin.They argued that there was no material on record directly and substantially implicating the two in the case. The Supreme Court had during earlier hearings asked what harm would ensue if the two were to be conditionally released on bail. It had also asked the counsel for the respondents to show where exactly the two had accused had involved in recruitment of people for terrorist activities..[Read order]