[Bhima Koregaon] Bombay High Court reserves verdict in plea by 8 accused challenging cognizance taken by Pune Sessions Judge

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by eight of sixteen accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case challenging the decision of the Pune Sessions Judge to take cognizance of chargesheet against them..The petitioner accused challenged an order of September 5, 2019 rejecting the default bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 43-D (2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.The accused had sought bail on the ground that Pune Sessions Judge RM Pande who signed the order as Special Judge (under the National Investigation Agency), Pune had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the chargesheet as original jurisdiction in the case was vested with the Magistrate..Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni appearing for Maharashtra government opposed the bail plea, making two fold submissions:That the cognisance of the chargesheet by the court was not a relevant aspect while hearing a default bail application; the aspect that needed to be considered was whether the chargesheet had been filed on time or not. In the present case the chargesheet was filed within the extended time period granted by the Court. That Section 16 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act clearly used the words "may take cognizance" implying that the same was not mandatory. His contention was that the Special Court was to hear only matters pertaining to the trial. Since taking cognizance of offences was not mandated, Sessions Court could have taken cognizance of the chargesheet, as it was a pre-trial stage.Kumbhakoni sought dismissal of the plea on the ground that it was not maintainable."A detailed order is also not required. Just a two page order recording dismissal will do milords," the AG submitted. .Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for NIA adopted Kumbhakoni's submissions and supplemented the arguments with an additional submission of his own. He argued that the petitioner accused seemed to have challenged only the order rejecting their default bail and no other order passed by the same judge were challenged. "There were orders extending remand, there were orders transferring the hearing to the NIA Court, none of that is challenged," Singh argued. .After both respondents concluded their submissions, advocate Sudeep Pasbola, for the petitioners gave a short rejoinder in response to the AG and ASG's arguments. He pointed out that both counsel failed to answer the core issue of the plea which is - whether the Court which took cognisance of the chargesheet had jurisdiction or competence to do so..[Bhima Koregaon] Bombay High Court reserves order in Sudha Bharadwaj default bail plea.After hearing both sides for 2 days, the Bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar reserved the matter for verdict.The Bench will pronounce the verdict along with another petition filed by Sudha Bharadwaj, a co-accused in the case who also had the same challenge.