[Bhima Koregaon] Five reasons why NIA is opposing Sudha Bharadwaj's default bail plea in Bombay High Court

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has opposed the default bail application filed by Bhima Koregaon accused Sudha Bharadwaj (Sudha Bharadwaj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr)..Bharadwaj had moved the High Court challenging two orders passed by Pune Sessions Judges KD Vadane and RM Pande on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to pass orders in the case.Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitted the following reasons for opposing the bail plea filed by Bharadwaj.A.Singh's primary contention was that Bharadwaj had not filed a "valid default bail application" after the right to default bail accrued. Explaining further, he submitted that right to default bail accrued upon expiry of the 90-day time period for filing of chargesheet as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the right for default bail also expired the minute the chargesheet had been filed by the investigating agency.In Bharadwaj's case, there were three applications filed - one within the completion of 90 days, and the next two after the chargesheet had been filed, indicating there was no valid default bail application under 167(2) of CrPC. .Singh's secondary contention was that the Special Court under the NIA Act assumed jurisdiction over the trial of a case "only after the NIA took over investigation of that case." Before NIA took over, the investigation was being carried out by the State police. He clarified further that as per provisions of the NIA Act, the Special Courts are supposed to conduct only trials and all pre-trial hearings could be conducted before other Sessions judges. In the present case assuming that the special court was supposed to hear the case, since the case was still in its pre trial stage, it was not required to be heard by the Special Court, he argued. .Another reason for opposing the bail plea was that there was no prejudice caused to Bharadwaj even if the orders were allegedly passed by a court not having jurisdiction. Singh submitted that assuming the Sessions court had no jurisdiction to pass the order, the Court had followed all due procedure of law before passing the order. "Bharadwaj was heard, and had accepted all order of that Court. There is no pleading that prejudice is caused," Singh argued. .Singh argued that assuming the initial remand granted to Bharadwaj was not by a proper court, as stated in her application, any subsequent remand by a proper court regularised the earlier improper remand. Singh referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. and a judgment in the case of Dheeraj Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra to buttress this submission..Singh's final contention was that "taking cognizance of a chargesheet and consideration of bail application were not dependent on each other". He argued that considerations in both cases, taking cognizance and default bail application, was independent.