Back
Mumbai Court Rejects NIA's Plea for Four Elgar Parishad Activists
In a significant setback for the , a has refused to cancel the bail of four activists accused in the . Special Judge Chakor Baviskar, presiding over the , dismissed the agency’s application seeking revocation of bail granted to Telugu poet Varavara Rao, lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, and activists Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves. The ruling underscores the judiciary's insistence on concrete evidence before inferring a violation of bail conditions.
The NIA had alleged that the four accused breached their bail conditions by attending a gathering at the on , where they were seen together with other co-accused. The agency claimed the meeting was intended to propagate the ideology of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and to plan the future of the so-called "Urban Naxal movement." However, the court found that mere presence at a common venue, without proof of any illegal activity, does not amount to a violation.
The Alleged Breach and the Court’s Reasoning
The bail conditions imposed on each of the four activists included a standard clause prohibiting them from contacting or communicating with co-accused or other persons involved in similar activities. The NIA argued that the January 19 gathering at the Press Club—attended by multiple accused persons—clearly contravened this condition. The agency also pointed to the fact that the event was "facilitated" by three Press Club members, one of whom was later suspended.
Judge Baviskar, after reviewing the CCTV footage of the entire meeting—which had no audio—observed that it was impossible to determine what specific communication took place. In his order, he noted:
"Certainly, on
at the terrace of the
, the accused and co-accused along with other invitees had gathered. Axiomatically and but naturally, they might have talked i.e. communicated with each other. It is but human that, they even might have talked about this case, facts of this case, fate of co-accused and such related issues. By that alone, it cannot be concluded that, they committed breach of the condition imposed."
The judge further highlighted that the accused meet each other routinely inside and outside the courtroom during hearings.
"By that, they cannot be said to be committing any breach…Merely because the venue of the meeting/gathering of the accused changed, they cannot be said to have committed breach of the bail condition,"
the order stated. The court emphasized that the true intent of the bail condition is to prevent the accused from re-engaging in similar illegal activities, not to penalize ordinary human interaction.
Lack of Evidence on Ideological Propagation
The NIA had specifically alleged that the gathering was convened with the
"intention of propagating the ideology of the proscribed organization
and to deliberate upon future course of action for spreading ‘Urban Naxal’ movement, which constitutes a direct threat to the integrity, sovereignty and security of the nation."
However, the court found no evidence to support this claim.
Judge Baviskar wrote:
"If the prosecution specifically alleges that, the intention of the gathering was to propagate the ideology of the proscribed organization
… the prosecution has to establish it at least with some sort of acceptable evidence. There is no such evidence which would compel this Court to accept that, the accused with these specific intentions had gathered over there with co-accused."
The defence counsels, including those representing Sudha Bharadwaj, argued that the accused had shared a long period of incarceration and relied on each other for moral support. Sudha Bharadwaj’s counsel submitted:
"This accused has never discussed or engaged in any illegal activity. … During their incarceration, they would rely on each other for support and moral courage since they were all in the same boat being wrongly persecuted by the NIA. They also shared their grief over the unfortunate and wholly unnecessary death of Father Stan Swamy, who was also their co-accused."
The Broader Context of the Bhima Koregaon Case
The Bhima Koregaon case originates from violence that erupted near Pune on , following a conclave called the Elgar Parishad, organized to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. One person was killed and several injured. The NIA has alleged that the Elgar Parishad was part of a larger Maoist conspiracy to stoke caste violence, destabilize the government, and assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Sixteen people were arrested, but of these, 14 have now been granted bail.
Notably, the , while granting bail to two accused in , remarked that the primary evidence—a batch of letters—was of "." Additionally, digital forensics firm concluded that false evidence had been planted on the devices of the accused. Jesuit priest Stan Swamy, who was also accused, died in prison in .
Varavara Rao was granted by the in , confirmed by the in . Sudha Bharadwaj got in after the NIA failed to file a chargesheet within 90 days. Ferreira and Gonsalves spent nearly five years in custody before the granted them in . The trial is yet to commence.
Judicial Caution and Future Implications
While dismissing the NIA’s application, Judge Baviskar issued a caution to the accused, advising them to avoid even the appearance of a breach. He stated:
"Nevertheless, as a matter of caution, since the accused was well aware of the bail condition, seeing other accused to have gathered at that function … the accused could and should have recused from there without being indulged in further function and avoid possibility of inviting such application for cancellation of bail. The accused is expected to take proper care and caution even to avoid possibility of committing
."
This observation serves as a reminder to all accused on bail that while innocent interactions are permitted, they must remain vigilant to prevent any misinterpretation by the prosecution.
The decision is likely to have a ripple effect in high-profile political cases where the NIA frequently seeks on grounds of alleged contact between co-accused. Legal experts note that the court’s insistence on evidence of actual illegal activity, rather than mere association, sets an important precedent. It reinforces the principle that bail conditions are not meant to curtail ordinary human contact, but to prevent the accused from endangering the investigation or committing further offences.
Conclusion
The ’s ruling is a reaffirmation of the and the limits of . By rejecting the NIA’s plea, the court has upheld the idea that suspicion and conjecture cannot override the lack of tangible evidence. For the four activists, the judgment brings a measure of relief after years of incarceration and legal battle. The case now moves forward to trial, where the central allegations of conspiracy will be tested on their merits.
