The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on bail petitions of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, who were arrested in August, 2018 for their alleged involvement in the Elgar Parishad Maoists links case, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The petitioners moved the Apex Court against its December 2021 order, by which the Bombay High Court denied them default bail, even as the same benefit was granted to another co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj.
Bhima Koregaon violence case: Supreme Court reserves verdict on bail pleas of Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira
The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on bail petitions of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, who were arrested in August, 2018 for their alleged involvement in the Elgar Parishad Maoists links case, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The petitioners moved the Apex Court against the Bombay High Court verdict of December, 2021, which denied them default bail, claiming that the same benefit was granted to another co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj appeared for the National Investigation Agency, Senior Advocate Rebecca John represented Gonsalves and Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for Ferreira.
Senior Advocate R. Basant, appearing for Ferreira, contended that the material on the basis of which the National Investigation Agency sought to implicate the appellants, besides being indirect and having no ‘nexus’ with the appellants, was also grossly insufficient.
He said the documents that formed the basis for the charges under the anti-terror statute were neither recovered from the appellants’ electronic devices, nor sent by or addressed to them.
Their names were also not explicitly mentioned in most of them, added the Senior Counsel.
The arguments were supported by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Gonsalves.
She said that some documents written by someone else were recovered from another person’s devices. The appellant’s name was taken.
Even assuming that the reference was made to the appellant, the agency needed to establish the nexus between him and the crime of which he was being accused, John contended, noting that this point was mentioned by the Bombay High Court also, while granting bail to Dalit scholar Anand Teltumbde in the same case.
She submitted that Gonsalves was also accused of inciting the January 1 violence in Pune, in exactly the same way as charges were levelled against Anand.
The Senior Advocate further referred to the Apex Court verdict granting bail to Thwaha Fasal and K.A. Najeeb, contending that bail was granted in both cases, despite serious allegations on the accused.
Appearing for NIA, Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj contended that the material on record was sufficient for a prima facie case to be discerned within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA.
Stating that their case was not similarly placed as that of Teltumbde, owing to difference in the material available on record, he claimed that there were several documents and witness statements to corroborate the agency’s version of events.
Speaking about the K.A. Najeeb case, he submitted that the essential factors that lead to a favourable ruling for the alleged Popular Front of India operative were missing in the present appeals.
He further expressed apprehensions over the insurgent groups and their operatives having an elaborate cross-country network, which posed a grave threat to the security of the nation.
The ASG further said that NIA was ready to go ahead with the trial, examine the witnesses and extend full cooperation in the investigation. However, Nataraj vehemently opposed the bail petitions in the interest of national security, stating that it was important to consider the impact such a verdict would have on the society.
(Case titles: Vernon vs State of Maharashtra, Arun vs State of Maharashtra)