Police seek 90 days extra to chargesheet P Varavara Rao, three others

PUNE: Police on Friday moved an application before a special UAPA court seeking 90 days of additional time for filing a supplementary chargesheet against activists P Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves, arrested on August 28 in the Elgar Parishad case.



“We have moved the application under Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [UAPA] as we feel the accused may calculate the first 90 days of their arrest from August 28 instead of the days when they were taken back into custody following the end of the terms of their house arrest,” investigating officer ACP Shivaji Pawar told TOI.

Pawar said, “The first 90 days of their arrest end on November 25. The accused may claim default bail in the absence of an extended time. The court has posted the plea for hearing on November 26.”

Lawyer Siddharth Patil, representing Ferreira, said, “The state moved the plea (dated November 22) on Friday and sought a hearing on the grounds that the 90 days were to lapse on November 25. However, we brought to the court’s notice that the state should have filed this plea on Thursday to give us at least a day’s time to prepare our case (Saturday and Sunday being weekend holidays).”

Patil said, “The state argued that the investigating officer was not in Pune on Thursday and, hence, the plea was moved on Friday. We insisted for sufficient time and the court granted an interim one-day extension by posting the hearing of the plea for November 26.”

Rao’s counsel, Rohan Nahar, said, “By filing the extension plea, the state/police have made it evident that they are themselves not sure about their case. The state had argued while seeking Rao’s remand in police custody that his term under house arrest cannot be considered as a custody. Now, they are claiming that the house arrest term was part of the custody. We will file our reply to the plea and argue the matter.”

Lawyer Rahul Deshmukh, representing Gonsalves, said, “The state/police have got themselves into a ‘Catch 22’ situation by taking such a contradictory stand. They will find it difficult to sustain their argument vis-à-vis the house arrest terms when the custodial remand of the activists was sought and now, for an extended period for filing the supplementary chargesheet. The court has held that the house arrest cannot be termed as custody and, hence, has earlier granted custodial remand.”

Already, the Maharashtra government’s petition against the October 24 order of the Bombay high court setting aside the Pune court’s September 2 order that granted 90 days’ additional time for filing the chargesheet against the five activists arrested on June 6, is pending before the Supreme Court. The state’s petition is due for a hearing on December 3.

On November 15, the Pune police had filed a chargesheet against Surendra Gadling and four other activists arrested on June 6 as well as five “underground Maoist operatives”, including three top leaders, for “plot to kill the Prime Minister and conspiracy to create unrest, overthrow government and wage a war against the country”.