Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Asks Special NIA Court To Decide On Framing Charges Within 3 Months

The bench also asked the NIA to issue proclaimed offender notice for the absconding accused persons.

The Court was prompted to pass the direction after the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the NIA, informed that the other accused in the case are still absconding. He had told the Court that either efforts have to be taken to segregate trial or steps should be taken for issuance of proclaimed offender for other accused.

The Supreme Court has not disposed of the SLP of Gonsalves and has adjourned it for three months to track the further developments.

The Court was considering a plea moved by Gonsalves challenging a 2019 Bombay High Court order which rejected his bail application.

In 2019, the Bombay High Court rejected the bail applications filed by activists Sudha Bharadwaj, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira observing that there was prima facie evidence that all three-applicant accused were active members of CPI(Maoist), a banned organisation, which attracts Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Court room exchange

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for the Gonsalves ,submitted that there was nothing in the supplementary chargesheet to implicate him.

ASG Raju appearing for the NIA submitted that Gonsalves was involved in encounters with armed forces.

"But the elementary question is how are any of these documents related to me? Without any connection or independent witness, it cannot be used against me. Statements don't frame me at all. Only witness…", John said.

She further pointed out that if UAPA had not been invoked he would have been granted bail even if the evidence was placed at a high pedestal.

Relying on the pleadings, ASG Raju told the Court that he had plans to topple State machinery. And that, the accused were sending messages through encrypted pen drives by using codes. So, the authorities had to decode the same via FSL.

After hearing the opposing arguments, the Bench observed that Gonsalves was convicted earlier for being part of a banned organisation.

"In normal circumstances, when someone is accused for the first time, we give them the benefit of the doubt…. In your case you have been convicted for being part of a banned organisation. You're not strictly an innocent person", the Bench orally said.

The Court also asked when he had completed his sentence.

"I had completed my sentence by the time the order was out", John said.

"But you are continuing your activities, as per the material on record", the court remarked.

As the hearing went along, ASG Raju pointed out that the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised at the stage of bail.

The Court then asked queries relating to Gonsalves' occupation.

"It is true you have completed 4 years. And the material was recovered from someone else's laptop. Hyderabad appears to be the location of co-accused. So, we had put it to you, what does he do in life? Does he travel often for his vocation?"

"Assuming that Gonsalves is "prima facie innocent", we can tell the trial court to hear his plea and decide on framing of charges. Or at best say we will direct to consider the matter after two months for bail", the court opined.

ASG Raju asked for three months' time and that he should co-operate with the investigation.

As the hearing to a conclusion, John requested the Court to direct the respondents to share cloned copies of the devices seized from Gonsalves.

But the Bench did not pass any such direction. It said,

"Let the trial court get on that. You have not moved such a request…."

Case Title: Vernon vs State of Maharashtra and Anr SLP(Crl) No. 5423/2022 II-A