SC Declines to Ease Varavara Rao's Bail Travel Restriction, Citing Trial Court as Proper Forum

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India today declined to entertain a plea from 85-year-old poet-activist P. Varavara Rao, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, seeking a modification of his medical bail conditions. The bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, dismissed the application as withdrawn, firmly directing that any such request must be made before the Special NIA Trial Court in Mumbai.

The application sought to alter a specific condition of Rao's August 2022 medical bail, which mandates that he cannot leave the Greater Mumbai area without prior permission from the trial court. Citing deteriorating health, lack of familial support in Mumbai, and severe financial strain, Rao’s counsel argued for permission to relocate to his home in Telangana. However, the bench remained unconvinced, underscoring the trial court's primary jurisdiction over bail condition management.

Arguments for Modification: Health, Hardship, and Delayed Trial

Appearing for Rao, Senior Advocate Anand Grover presented a compelling case based on humanitarian and practical grounds. He informed the Court that Rao, who has been out on bail for nearly two years, continues to suffer from poor health. "Today also, he fell from dizziness," Grover submitted, emphasizing the octogenarian's fragility.

A significant new development underpinning the plea was the relocation of Rao’s wife to Hyderabad. Grover explained that she was his primary caregiver in Mumbai, and her absence has left him without adequate support. This personal hardship was compounded by a dire financial situation. The Court was told that Rao’s monthly pension of ₹50,000 is insufficient to cover his expenses in Mumbai, which amount to approximately ₹76,000 per month, largely due to medical costs. In contrast, Grover argued, Rao is entitled to free government health services in his home state of Telangana.

Furthermore, Grover highlighted the glacial pace of the legal proceedings. He pointed out that the trial is currently at the stage of compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (supply of documents to the accused) and is "not likely to be completed anytime soon." This prolonged pre-trial phase, he contended, adds an indefinite dimension to the restrictive bail condition, effectively amounting to a form of city-based confinement.

The Bench's Unyielding Stance

Despite the impassioned submissions, the bench of Justices Maheshwari and Bishnoi showed no inclination to intervene. Justice Maheshwari's remarks were pointed, placing the onus of Rao's healthcare on the state while deferring to the lower court. "Government will take care of his health... otherwise go to the same Court, we are not interested," the judge stated, signaling a clear jurisdictional boundary.

The Court’s refusal to engage on the merits of the plea reinforces the procedural hierarchy where the trial court, being closest to the facts and ongoing proceedings of the case, is deemed the appropriate forum for modifying bail conditions. When Grover requested that the order at least record that Rao may be permitted to file a similar application at a later stage, the Court declined. Consequently, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving Rao with the sole option of petitioning the Special NIA court.

Background: The 2022 Medical Bail Order

This development comes nearly two years after a different Supreme Court bench, comprising then-CJI UU Lalit, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, granted Rao permanent bail on medical grounds in August 2022. That order was a significant one, taking into account his advanced age, multiple ailments, and the 2.5 years of actual custody he had already served.

The 2022 bench had explicitly noted that the trial had not yet commenced and charges were yet to be framed, despite the charge sheet having been filed long before. It was in this context that bail was granted, but with stringent conditions. Para 18(b)(i) of that order, the subject of the current plea, stated that Rao "shall not leave the area of Greater Mumbai without express permission from the Special NIA Court at Mumbai." Other conditions included not misusing his liberty, avoiding contact with witnesses, and keeping the National Investigation Agency (NIA) informed of any medical treatment received.

Crucially, the 2022 order clarified that bail was "granted solely on medical grounds and shall not be taken as a reflection on the merits of the matter." This caveat has been central to the prosecution's stance and likely influenced the current bench's reluctance to alter the foundational terms of that release.

Legal Analysis and Broader Implications

The Supreme Court's decision today, while procedurally sound, carries significant implications for undertrials in long-drawn-out cases, particularly those under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

• Jurisdictional Primacy of the Trial Court: The ruling is a strong affirmation of the principle that trial courts should be the first port of call for modifying bail conditions. The apex court is signaling its reluctance to micromanage bail terms, preferring that such matters are adjudicated by the court overseeing the trial, which has a continuing grasp of the case's progress and the accused's conduct.

• The High Bar in UAPA Cases: Even though bail was granted, the Court’s refusal to ease a non-custodial restriction demonstrates the persistent shadow cast by the UAPA. The state's security concerns often outweigh individual hardships, and courts remain exceptionally cautious in relaxing any conditions that could be perceived as weakening prosecutorial oversight.

• The Dilemma of Protracted Trials: The case throws a harsh light on the "process is the punishment" critique often leveled against the Indian criminal justice system. With the trial nowhere in sight, bail conditions like geographical restrictions can transform into a form of indefinite, extra-judicial punishment. While not imprisoned, the individual's liberty is severely curtailed, impacting their health, finances, and family life.

• Medical Bail vs. Unconditional Liberty: The decision subtly distinguishes between the grant of bail on medical grounds and the rights enjoyed by an ordinary citizen. The Court’s approach suggests that medical bail is a concession to infirmity, not a full restoration of liberty, and the conditions attached are integral to that concession. Any argument for modification must therefore meet a very high threshold, one that Rao’s plea, in the Supreme Court’s view, did not cross.

For legal practitioners, this outcome serves as a strategic reminder to root applications for modification of bail conditions firmly in the trial court. It also underscores the challenge of balancing humanitarian arguments against the stringent statutory framework of the UAPA and the judiciary's deference to procedural propriety. As Varavara Rao is now compelled to petition the Special NIA Court, the legal community will be watching to see how the trial court weighs his deteriorating health and financial plight against the strictures of his ongoing trial.