SC will hear state SLP on Bhima-Koregaon on October 29

The Asian Age.  | J Venkatesan

India, All India

The state has challenged the Bombay HC order quashing Pune trial court’s order extending the detention of the 5 arrested activists.

On September 2, the special Judge at Pune granted time for extending detention. (Photo: PTI)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on October 29 a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Maharashtra government, challenging the Bombay high court’s order setting aside the extension of time granted by a Pune trial court for completion of investigation into the Bhima-Koregaon case.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph posted the SLP for hearing on Monday on a “mention” made by the counsel for Maharashtra, seeking urgent listing of the case.

The Bombay high court on October 24 passed an order quashing the special Judge’s order extending detention of the accused for the purpose of completing the investigation into the Bhima-Koregaon violence. As a consequence of the high court order, those arrested could apply for default bail. The accused, including Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson and others, were arrested in June this year in connection with the Bhima Koregaon violence that took place earlier this year. On August 30, an application under section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, was made by the assistant commissioner of police, Swargate division, Pune, with a view to extend detention of accused beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.

On September 2, the special Judge at Pune granted time for extending detention. Gadling and others approached the Bombay high court, which held that extension of time was illegal. The high court stayed operation of its order till November 1 to enable the state to move the apex court. In its SLP, the state has said that the accused did not formally oppose the application under section 43D when the same was made before the special Judge. The high court resorted to a “pedantic view rather than a pragmatic view” while deciding the matter.