Bhima-Koregaon | Supreme Court Adjourns UAPA Accused Shoma Sen's Bail Hearing Until January 10

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 6), while hearing English professor and Bhima Koregaon-accused Shoma Sen's plea against a Bombay High Court order asking her to approach a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) for bail, indicated that it would have to examine whether the supplementary chargesheets filed in the case levelled any fresh allegations against her and these were brought on record before the high court.A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih was hearing a special leave petition filed by Sen through Advocate-on-Record Nupur Kumar challenging a January 17 order of the Bombay High Court, by which it directed her to approach the special court trying her case, for bail. She has been lodged in jail since June 2018 for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 after being arrested in connection with the 2018 caste-based violence that broke out at Bhima Koregaon in Pune, and for having alleged links with the proscribed outfit, Communist Party of India (Maoists).The top court issued notice in Sen's special leave petition in May this year, along with co-accused Jyoti Jagtap's bail plea. During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj questioned the high court's order remanding the matter to the trial court arguing that it ought to have considered Sen's application on its merits. "The high court or the sessions court is not exercising their concurrent jurisdiction, but hearing an appeal. The high court, therefore, was not correct and should have heard it on its merits. This court does not have the benefit of the high court's findings. Second, all material has to be placed before this court and examined by it. The high court has wrong in not considering these aspects and remitting the matter to the lower court.""We'll keep this mind. Your case is that the high court did not have the opportunity to examine this material?" Justice Bose clarified. The law officer responded in the affirmative. Senior Advocate Anand Grover, however, protested, arguing that all relevant material had already been placed before the top court for its consideration. Justice Bose reasoned, "On the technical point, Mr Nataraj is correct. What we will examine is that if fresh allegations in the supplementary chargesheets against her have been brought on record. This appeal has been pending before us for a while. In the event we find that the first chargesheet was the substantive one, which was examined by the trial court and the high court..."Grover, in response, strongly insisted that there were no fresh allegations against Sen in the supplementary chargesheets. Like the additional solicitor-general, Grover also argued against the high court order. But the ground he cited was the lack of any change in circumstances that would necessitate the trial court to consider Sen's bail application. "There are two supplementary chargesheets that do not relate to Sen. The original chargesheet, which contained the allegations against her, was examined by the trial court and the high court. Despite this, the high court has asked her to go back. But why should she go back? Why should she be prejudiced for five and a half years? It's a travesty of justice."Taking the court through the chargesheets filed in the case, the senior counsel contended -"The subsequent chargesheets were filed because other people were arrested...Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha...The supplementary chargesheets focused on them. These were before the high court, and there was no reason to not look at it. But even there, there was barely anything [against Sen]. The same thing is being repeated ad nauseam...conspiracy...but what is the conspiracy, no one knows. She has to run from court to court for bail? That can't be, it's been five and a half years.""Even assuming that there is no new material in the second chargesheet, high court ought to have gone into merits," ASG Nataraj interjected. Justice Bose, in this connection, observed that where an appellate court does not go into the merits and wrongly remands the matter, then the Supreme Court could sit in appeal.Before concluding for the day, Grover invoked the dictum of the top court's ruling in KA Najeeb, which upheld the right of a constitutional court to grant bail to people accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 43D (5), in order to protect the right of the accused to speedy trial which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In aid of this contention, Grover specifically pointed to Sen's advanced age and ill health, as well as the period spent under incarceration.He also said that Sen's appeal was squarely covered by the Vernon Gonsalves judgment from earlier this year. In this case, co-accused Gonsalves and Ferreira were granted bail by the Supreme Court after almost five years in custody. Justice Bose, along with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, besides taking into consideration...

Bhima-Koregaon | Supreme Court Adjourns UAPA Accused Shoma Sen's Bail Hearing Until January 10

Awstika Das

'Were Fresh Allegations Made In Supplementary Chargesheets And Did The High Court Consider Them?' Supreme Court Asks During Shoma Sen's Bail Hearing

Tags