Special Public Prosecutor Advait Sethna argued that there were compelling reasons in the application to allow extension of time to file chargesheet.
“Detailed application is not required, what is required is compelling reasons,” Sethna said.
He stated that the application contained three parts – compelling reasons for extension, grounds for extension and details regarding the progress of investigation.
Sethna argued that considering the application has been filed within the period of 180 days (which is the time period for filing of the chargesheet), even if the application is decided after the period expires, it will not entitle the accused to default bail.
As for the malafides alleged by the accused, Sethna pointed out that both sides may have their contentions, but what was required was to follow the mandate of the Supreme Court while considering the compelling reasons.
“We are not holy cows, they are not holier than thou. Both sides have stories to tell,” Sethna contended.
Sethna further submitted that it was not the intention of the agency to hide the status of the investigation. Sethna pointed out to the court that statements of 15 key suspects were remaining and investigation regarding some of the accused was missing since they were interconnected.
He also added that the prosecution was not obligated to provide copy of the report of the public prosecutor as per judicial mandate of the division bench of the Delhi High Court, and hence the NCB has not committed any judicial impropriety of giving the defence a copy.
Source: Barandbench
