Five reasons why NIA is contradicting Sudha Bharadwaj’s default safeguard supplication in Bombay HC

The National Examination Office (NIA) has restricted the default safeguard application recorded by Bhima Koregaon denounced Sudha Bharadwaj (Sudha Bharadwaj v. State of Maharashtra & Anr).

Bharadwaj had moved the High Court challenging two orders passed by Pune Sessions Judges KD Vadane and RM Pande on the ground that they had no purview to pass orders within the case Additional Specialist Common Anil Singh submitted the taking after reasons for contradicting the safeguard supplication recorded by Bharadwaj.

A Singh’s essential dispute was that Bharadwaj had not recorded a “substantial default bail application” after the correct to default safeguard accrued. Explaining assistance, he submitted that right to default safeguard was collected upon expiry of the 90-day time period for recording of charge sheet as per the Code of Criminal Method.

Singh alluded to a judgment of the Pinnacle Court within the case of Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. and a judgment within the case of Dheeraj Wadhawan v. State of Maharashtra to buttress this submission.

Singh’s last dispute was that “taking cognizance of a chargesheet and thought of safeguard application were not subordinate to each other”. He contended that contemplations in both cases, taking cognizance and default safeguard application.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s