Finding no fault with the charge sheet filed by the Maharashtra police against urban Naxals beyond the 90-day statutory period, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck a big blow to the claim by the alleged Naxal activists to seek bail on this account.

However, offering some solace to the activists – Surendra Gadling, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Mahesh Raut and Shoma Sen, who are currently in jail, the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that its order shall not influence the trial court while dealing with the regular bail plea of the accused.

The development has come as a shot in the arm for the state police which slapped draconian provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against each of the accused for their alleged role in the Bhima Koregaon violence in Pune on January 1, 2018. Documents seized from their homes and offices in April 2018 led the police to several other arrests of renowned social activists and recovery of literature linking them to the banned terrorist organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist).

But despite arrest of the five named activists, the police could not file the charge sheet within the stipulated time of 90 days. The period came to an end on September 3, 2018. Using a provision under UAPA, Section 43(D)(2)(b), the state police sought extension upto 90 days for completing investigation and convinced the trial court. This application was supported by a report from the public prosecutor detailing the probe and the need for further investigation.

The activists had challenged this order in Bombay High Court and got it reversed on October 24, 2018. The HC was of the view that the procedure under Section 43D of UAPA Act as the public prosecutor did not apply an independent mind but simply endorsed the request for extension of time moved earlier by the investigating officer (IO). It was this order that the Maharashtra government challenged in SC. The SC had stayed the HC order on October 29 and the charge sheet was filed on November 15, 2018.

The bench comprising of CJI Gogoi, Justices LN Rao and SK Kaul set aside the HC order and said, "We find that there has been an application of mind by the public prosecutor as well as an endorsement by him. The infirmities in the form should not entitle the respondents to the benefit of a default bail when in substance there has been an application of mind."

Justice Kaul, who wrote the judgment, felt that the prosecutor's application did create some room for doubt as the reasons seeking extension of 90 day period were not clearly spelt out. The bench compared the application of the prosecutor with that of IO and found them to be different in content with the prosecutor's application setting out investigation details extensively.

The prosecutor revealed that a collection of voluminous data in electronic form, some of which showed the involvement of the accused, had been sent to the forensic lab, whose reports were awaited.