A Mumbai court has granted bail to ex-TISS student Abhirup Ashim Paul, holding that the investigation had failed to place sufficient material on record linking him to Maoist ideology, any banned organisation or activities against the nation. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dattatray Shankarrao Khedekar of the 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, said that, at the prima facie stage, there was no material beyond suspicion connecting Paul with Maoist ideology or any banned organisation. The Court held that continued incarceration could not be justified merely based on such suspicion.
Paul had been arrested on August 7, 2026, in connection with FIR No. 464/2026 registered at Trombay Police Station over an October 12, 2025, event at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The FIR invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Maharashtra Police Act, with a maximum prescribed punishment of five years. The bail came after Paul spent more than a month in jail.
The case arose from a campus gathering organised to commemorate the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. According to the FIR, students participating in the event raised slogans including “Rest in power G.N. Saibaba” and slogans demanding the release of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Nine people were booked in connection with the incident, with Paul named as accused No. 3.
From campus slogans to allegations of Maoist links
The prosecution sought to portray the gathering as something far more serious than a student commemoration. It alleged that the event was part of a pre-planned conspiracy intended to create ideological divisions among TISS students and disturb law and order. It further alleged that Paul had deleted secret groups, WhatsApp chats and the Signal application from his phone and that he had threatened witnesses and police personnel.
The prosecution also relied heavily on material recovered from Paul’s mobile phone, including PDFs of books concerning Maoism. It argued that these materials demonstrated support for Maoist ideology and suggested the possibility of links with banned organisations. The police went further, alleging that documents relating to the Purba Bangla Maoist Party indicated the possibility of cross-border connections and a larger organised network. The Court, however, did not accept that an ideological or political inference could simply be converted into criminal culpability.
The Magistrate noted that the investigation had sought to connect Paul’s activities to threats against national unity and the possibility of creating hatred in society. Yet, after examining the material placed before it, the Court found no prima facie incriminating material establishing his involvement in activities against the nation. His membership of the Progressive Students Forum, participation in the commemoration and raising of slogans did not, by themselves, provide sufficient material to establish the alleged Maoist connection. Most significantly, the Court rejected the attempt to draw a Maoist connection merely from the presence of Maoist literature in digital form.
“The allegations against the accused as per FIR is prima facie of conducting activity of commemoration of death anniversary and slogan and during investigation, it appears that the investigating officer has made suspicious activities of the accused by connecting with nation and made suspicion that the possibility of creating hatred in the community and in the society. Therefore, the investigation was undertaken on the said aspect, however, prima facie there is no incriminating material on record to justify involvement of the accused against the nation and only because accused is member of Progressive Students Forum of TISS and participation in the activity of commemoration and the uttering slogans along with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer prima facie does not found supporting material that the accused has got benefit of social network and prima facie no material to connect the accused with the mind set of Maoist merely because of finding of pdf books the inference of connection with the mind set of Maoist cannot be drawn.” (Para 15)
Reading books is not evidence of criminal association
The order draws an important line between possession or study of literature and proof of participation in a banned organisation or criminal activity. Relying, among other things, on the Bombay High Court’s reasoning in Jyoti Chorge v. State of Maharashtra, the Magistrate noted that literature which is not itself banned cannot automatically become incriminating merely because of its ideological content. The Court recognised that students may read and collect material as part of their academic engagement and pursuit of knowledge, and that such conduct cannot, without more, establish participation in a Maoist or Naxal movement.
This distinction is crucial in the present case. The prosecution’s case sought to move from what Paul allegedly read, what slogans he allegedly raised and which student organisation he belonged to an inference about his ideological allegiance and, ultimately, his supposed threat to national unity. But the Magistrate found that the evidentiary bridge between those facts and the criminal allegations had not been established.
The Court specifically recorded that there was no material demonstrating that Paul had used social networks to obtain a benefit for, or establish a connection with, a banned organisation. Nor did the material placed before the Court establish that merely possessing the PDFs meant that Paul shared the “mind set” of Maoists.
Custody cannot continue on suspicion alone
The Court also considered the length and purpose of the investigation. Paul had initially obtained interim protection from arrest from the Sessions Court in October 2025, which continued for several months. His anticipatory bail application was ultimately rejected on August 7, 2026, after which he was taken into custody. His mobile phone and laptop had already been seized and he had been interrogated.
The Magistrate found that the investigating agency had already been given sufficient time to investigate the allegations. In the Court’s assessment, the subsequent custodial interrogation had not produced material capable of establishing the alleged Maoist or anti-national connection.
“It is material to note that while consideration of ABA 2071 of 2025 and the aspect of involvement of the accused in the light of investigation was considered and the application of the accused was rejected for custodial interrogation to extract truth, however, prima facie except suspicion there is no material to link the activities of the accused with mindset of Maoist or against the nation or associating with banned organization against the India. The interrogation against the accused is carried out for sufficient period and in such circumstances, no further custody of the accused is required, therefore, in such circumstances, in comparative to the order passed in favour of accused Kamakhya Das by the Hon’ble High Court, the present accused has made out ground to release him on bail with imposing conditions to monitor the activities of the accused and safeguard the objection of prosecution.” (Para 17)
The Court consequently held that further custody was not required. It also took note of the Bombay High Court’s August 14, 2026, order granting protection to co-accused Kamakhya Das in connection with the same allegations. The High Court had, prima facie, considered whether participation in the event and the alleged slogans constituted an offence and granted protection subject to conditions, including attendance before the police for investigation.
Keeping him behind bars would not be just
The Magistrate also placed weight on Paul’s age and educational circumstances, observing that continued incarceration in the absence of incriminating material could adversely affect his career. The Court concluded that, where the investigation had had sufficient time and the material before it remained at the level of suspicion, keeping the young accused behind bars would not be just.
Paul has accordingly been granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to furnish provisional cash security of ₹1 lakh for two weeks and report to the DCB CID Unit-06 every Wednesday between 10 a.m. and noon until the filing of the chargesheet. The order also imposes conditions against influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, committing a similar offence and leaving India without the Court’s permission.
The order is, of course, confined to the question of bail and does not amount to a final determination on the merits of the prosecution case. The Magistrate expressly clarified that the prima facie observations made while deciding the bail application should not influence the final adjudication of the case.
Yet the reasoning is consequential. At least at the stage of bail, the Court has refused to treat political or ideological suspicion as a substitute for evidence. The presence of Maoist literature on a student’s device, participation in a campus commemoration, membership of a student forum and the raising of slogans may invite investigation, but they cannot, without supporting material, automatically establish association with a banned organisation or an offence against the nation.
The complete order may be read below:
Related:
They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad
Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case