ATS fails to file a chargesheet despite getting an extended deadline
Team Clarion
MUMBAI – The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Moin Moinuddin Ghulam Hasan alias Moin Mistry and Asif Amin Al Hussain Khan Adhikari, two suspected members of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI). The bench, comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse, delivered the ruling on Monday, highlighting significant delays by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in filing the chargesheet against the accused.
On September 22, 2022, the ATS arrested the two, alleging their involvement with the banned PFI. Despite the serious charges, the ATS failed to file the necessary chargesheet within the stipulated 90-day period. The agency sought additional time from the court, citing the need to gather more information from seized electronic devices and awaiting approval from the Home Department to prosecute the case.
Initially, the special court granted the ATS a 30-day extension. When the ATS again requested more time, the prosecution received an additional 15 days to file the chargesheet. However, they still could not meet this deadline.
“The ATS had ample time to present their case but repeatedly failed to do so,” said the defence lawyer of one of the accused. “It’s a fundamental right of the accused to be granted bail when the investigating agency fails to adhere to the legal timeline.”
After the special court denied bail to the suspects on January 18, 2023, the accused challenged the decision in the Bombay High Court. The high court noted the prosecution’s inability to meet deadlines and granted bail to the accused.
“The delay in filing the chargesheet reflects inefficiencies within the investigating agency,” commented a legal expert. “This case underscores the necessity for prompt and efficient legal procedures to uphold justice.”
The defence strongly objected to the multiple extensions requested by the ATS, arguing that the delays were unjustifiable and infringed upon the rights of the accused.
The high court’s decision to grant bail to the accused marks a significant moment in the case, questioning the procedural conduct of the ATS in handling sensitive investigations involving banned organisations.
