Read Time: 03 minutes
The Bench asked the accused, as to why should the bail plea be heard by the Division Bench and not a Single Judge Bench, and to bring in judgments supporting that bail in UAPA has to be heard by a Division Bench.
The division bench comprising of Justices A.S Gadkari and M.N Jadhav of the Bombay High Court questioned the accused as to why should the bail plea of the accused be heard by the division bench and not a single judge bench.
Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, for the accused argued before the bench, that when an offence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is involved, a bail plea would be heard by a division bench. He also submitted before the court, that earlier the bail plea was rejected by the regular court and not the NIA court. And that the parameters would be different under a scheduled offense,
Upon which Justice Gadkari told the advocate “Various agencies across the country have investigated under UAPA, but it does not become a scheduled offense.”
The division bench has asked both parties to bring judgments in support of their arguments in the next hearing.
Background of the case:
Narendra Dabholkar was an activist who was shot dead in Pune in 2013 while taking a morning walk. The police arrested a few people and recovered firearms that were used to kill Dabholkar. Subsequently, in 2014 the case was transferred to CBI. The CBI after its investigation said that the case involved an act of terrorism, after which the provisions of UAPA were invoked. After the charge sheet was filed against the accused along with the supplementary charge sheet, the investigation is still being carried on by the CBI.
Source: India Today
Please Login or Register
