SC Grants Medical Bail in Bhima Koregaon Case, Cites Stayed HC Order as Key Factor

NEW DELHI – In a significant order highlighting the interplay between an accused's right to health and the procedural rigours of anti-terror legislation, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, granted a six-week interim bail on medical grounds to Mahesh Raut, an activist arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon case. The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored a crucial and somewhat novel aspect in its reasoning: the fact that Raut had previously been granted regular bail on merits by the Bombay High Court, an order that the apex court itself had stayed nearly two years ago.

Raut, who has been incarcerated since June 2018 under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), was granted relief to seek specialized treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disorder. This decision not only provides temporary liberty to Raut but also offers a critical lens into the judiciary's evolving approach to bail, particularly in cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention and stayed orders from lower courts.

---

The Twin Pillars of the Bail Order: Medical Need and Prior Judicial Sanction

The core of the Supreme Court's decision rests on a dual justification. Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, representing Raut, successfully argued that his client's medical condition required urgent and specialized care that was unavailable in Taloja prison or at Mumbai's J.J. Hospital. However, what appeared to decisively tilt the scales was the constant reference to the Bombay High Court's order of September 21, 2023, which had granted Raut regular bail.

That High Court order was stayed by the Supreme Court following an appeal by the National Investigating Agency (NIA), and the stay had been extended multiple times, leaving Raut in custody despite a detailed judicial finding in his favour. Justice Sundresh’s bench explicitly linked these two elements in its final pronouncement.

"The applicant is seeking interim bail on medical grounds coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail [by the High Court]. We are inclined to grant medical bail for a period of six weeks," the court stated in its order.

This "coupling" of factors is legally significant. While interim bail on medical grounds is a well-established principle, the court's explicit reliance on a prior, stayed bail order as a contributing reason is a noteworthy development in bail jurisprudence. It suggests that a previous judicial determination on the merits, even if not currently operative, can lend weight and credibility to subsequent applications for interim relief.

During the proceedings, Justice Sundresh also made poignant observations about the nature of such protracted legal battles over personal liberty. Remarking on the two-year-long stay, he noted, “It’s unfair. If you go by the judgment, we are not supposed to stay bail as a matter of course.” This comment may signal a growing judicial discomfort with the practice of prosecutorial agencies obtaining long-term stays on bail orders, effectively nullifying the relief granted by a competent court without a final hearing on the appeal.

The NIA’s Unwavering Opposition

The National Investigating Agency (NIA), represented by Advocate Zoheb Hossain, vehemently opposed the bail plea. The agency reiterated its core allegation that Raut was involved in transferring funds to the proscribed Communist Party of India (Maoist) and that the charges against him were of a very serious nature. The NIA has consistently maintained that the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune in December 2017 featured provocative speeches that instigated the violence at Bhima Koregaon the following day.

The NIA's opposition is rooted in the stringent provisions of the UAPA, which places a high bar for granting bail. Section 43D(5) of the Act mandates that bail shall not be granted if the court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. The Bombay High Court, in its 2023 order, had found that the NIA's evidence did not meet this prima facie threshold, a finding that remains under challenge before the Supreme Court.

In a striking moment during the hearing, while the NIA counsel stressed the gravity of the allegations, Justice Sundresh reportedly quipped with a line from an English film: “If you kill a single person, you are a murderer, but if you kill a thousand persons, you are a conqueror. That’s the only difference.” While an obiter dictum, the remark can be interpreted as a philosophical reflection on how the scale of an alleged crime is perceived within the justice system.

Broader Implications for UAPA Jurisprudence and Undertrial Rights

This case brings several critical legal issues to the forefront for legal practitioners and the judiciary:

1. Prolonged Incarceration as a Factor: Raut has been in custody for over seven years without trial. The Supreme Court has, in several past judgments, recognized that indefinite pre-trial detention is a violation of fundamental rights. While the court did not grant regular bail, the interim relief, influenced by the duration of custody and the stayed bail order, reinforces the principle that procedural delays and lengthy incarceration can become grounds for relief.

2. The Weight of a Stayed Bail Order: The court’s reasoning sets a potential precedent where a stayed bail order is not merely a procedural artifact but a substantive consideration. Defence counsels in similar situations may now argue that a stayed order from a High Court, which has assessed the merits, should be a persuasive factor when seeking interim bail on other grounds.

3. Judicial Scrutiny of Medical Claims: The bench had earlier taken note of Raut's condition on September 8, when Justice Sundresh observed that government doctors often "play it safe" and might not recommend specialized treatment for fear of responsibility. He had remarked, “If the ailment is so serious that it warrants continuous treatment, then there is no difficulty.” This indicates a willingness by the apex court to look beyond cursory medical reports from prison authorities and consider the practical realities of healthcare for inmates.

The case also brought attention to other co-accused in the Bhima Koregaon case. Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat mentioned the pending plea of Jyoti Jagtap, another activist arrested in the case. The court has scheduled her matter for hearing in October, indicating that the legal battle for the Bhima Koregaon 16 is far from over.

As Mahesh Raut prepares for a temporary release to address his health, the legal community will be closely watching the NIA's pending appeal against his regular bail. The Supreme Court's final decision on that matter will have far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of UAPA's bail provisions and the delicate balance between national security concerns and the fundamental right to liberty.