Investigating officer ACP Shivaji Pawar told TOI, "We have taken Ferreira and Gonsalves into our custody and have sent a team to Bharadwaj's residence in Faridabad to bring her to Pune. Ferreira and Gonsalves will be produced before court on Saturday."
On September 28, the Supreme Court had extended the house arrest of the activists by four weeks, which ended on Friday. Police action came after the Pune court rejected their bail pleas. It also rejected a plea by Ferreira and Gonsalves for an extension of their house arrest by a week. Additional sessions judge K D Vadane said, "At this stage, from the material collected by the probe officer, prima facie it reveals the involvement of the applicants/accused." He dismissed the defence argument that police action was based on false and fabricated material with no evidentiary value.
"Whether impugned (under challenge) material is false, bogus and fabricated is a matter of evidence (to be decided during the trial)," the judge said, adding, "The investigation is at a very crucial stage. Therefore, in my view, the present applicants/accused are not entitled to be released on bail."
The court relied extensively on "incriminating" letters recovered from the electronic devices of the activists as well as a couple of email intercepts. It said, "The material collected by the investigating officer cumulatively shows the alleged act of the accused travels beyond the gravity of mere disturbance of public order...(It) may at times transcend the frontiers of the locality and include such anti-national activities which throw a challenge to the integrity…sovereignty of the country."
The court dismissed the defence argument that since Hindutva leader Milind Ekbote had been granted bail, the three activists should get bail on parity. The defence had said that the FIRs registered with the Pimpri police against Ekbote and Sambhaji Bhide and that in relation to the Elgar Parishad were in the nature of cross FIRs.
The court, however, said the two FIRs were distinct in nature and the involvement of the activists was disclosed in the police investigations. It also dismissed arguments about illegality and violation of rights in the arrest procedure, saying, "The investigating officer has not committed any error. Moreover, the arrest panchanama shows that intimation to relatives and friends of the accused…was immediately given."
Later, rejecting the plea by Ferreira and Gonsalves for a week-long extension of their house arrest, the judge told their lawyers Siddharth Patil and Rahul Deshmukh, "The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers for directing the house arrests, but this court has no such inherent powers." District government pleader Ujjwala Pawar had opposed the plea, arguing that there was no provision for such interim relief under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). "The court has rejected the bail pleas on merits under the UAPA provisions," she argued.
(With inputs from Mihir Tanksale)
from Times of India https://ift.tt/2Rl0wYF
