Bombay HC bail for Hany Babu signals a critical reassessment of the Bhima Koregaon Case

Coming after years of custodial denial, contested digital evidence and prolonged trial delays, the order signals a renewed judicial pushback against punitive pre-trial detention. In a significant development in the long-running Bhima Koregaon prosecutions, the Bombay High Court has granted bail to former Delhi University professor Hany Babu, nearly five years after his arrest under the UAPA. While the detailed judgment is awaited, the court’s decision marks an important moment in a case where bail has historically been the exception rather than the norm. Babu’s incarceration—tied to the Pune Police and NIA’s theory of a wider “urban Maoist” conspiracy—has drawn sustained rights-based scrutiny due to extensive delays, grave medical concerns, and international forensic analyses indicating that incriminating files on co-accused devices may have been planted. The order situates itself within evolving judicial recognition that excessively long UAPA detention raises constitutional concerns of liberty, due process and investigative overreach.

On 4 December 2025, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (BHC), comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha R. Bhonsale granted bail to Hany Babu, more than five years after his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020. The court also refused the NIA’s request to stay the bail order pending appeal.

The bail has been granted principally on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial, and pending framing of charges or discharge applications. The bench relied on the ruling in UOI vs K.A.Najeeb, which held that the constitutional courts could grant bail, despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA when the fundamental rights are at stake. This decision, after repeated earlier bail rejections under the stringent anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is widely seen as a watershed moment, and marks a potential turning point in how courts deal with prolonged UAPA detentions.

Case History: From 2018 onwards, the arrests

The flashpoint was the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima (1818), an event of deep historical significance for Dalits. On 31 December 2017, a public event called Elgar Parishad was held at the historic Shaniwarwada Fort in Pune, reportedly attended by tens of thousands, with speeches, cultural performances, slogans, etc.

The following day, 1 January 2018, in an entirely unconnected sequence of events, violence broke out near the memorial at Koregaon Bhima, between sections of the far Hindu right Maratha and Dalit Communities, which led to stone-pelting, mob clashes, along with several injuries.  Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)  has traced the actual sequence of events and the manner in which the narrative was twisted to protect supremacists. This may be read here. The initial and first crimes recorded in the FIRs were against Milind Exbote and other extremists, details of which may be read here.[1]

Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Within weeks of the filing of the first FIR dated January 2, 2018, later that month, a Pune-based businessman with controversial leanings filed a First Information Report (FIR) blaming revolutionary speeches made at the Elgaar Parishad for the January 1 Bhima Koregaon violence, in which one person was killed. Youth leader and MLA from Gujarat, Jignesh Mevani and student leader, Umar Khalid, approached the Bombay High Court for quashing the FIRs filed against them. Details can be read here. On April 22, 2018, one of the key witnesses of the violence, a 19-year-old Dalit woman who had lost her house in the violence was found dead in a well. Her family alleged that she was being pressured to withdraw her statements in the case. What followed was a spate of arrests of activists and advocates including Professor Hany Babu. Details of the sequence of arrests may be read here.

While the immediate event was treated as anti-Dalit violence, later, even the police under the Fadnavis government and then the NIA investigations invoked an alternate narrative: that the Elgar Parishad was not a benign cultural gathering, but part of a broader “conspiracy aiming at destabilisation of the government.

After the first FIR in January 2018 by a ‘Pune-based businessman’, and on November 15, 2018 the Pune Police filed the first chargesheet. On January 24, 2020, the case was transferred to the NIA, which thereafter treated this as a terror/conspiracy case under UAPA, rather than as caste or communal violence.

Over time, a total of 16 individuals; a mixture of activists, academics, lawyers, and cultural performers; came to be known as the accused group in this case, widely referred to as “BK-16”.

These included: Hany Babu (associate professor at Delhi University), Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Tatyarama Gorkhe, and other lawyers, socio-cultural activists from groups like Kabir Kala Manch (a Dalit cultural troupe), and writers/academics.

Timeline of Key Arrests and Legal Steps

The Allegations & Charges: What the State Has Claimed

The prosecution’s theory (as advanced by NIA), presented the Elgar Parishad event as a front for an “urban Maoist conspiracy” aimed at destabilising the State, fomenting caste-based violence, and reviving the banned CPI (Maoist). The accused (BK-16) were allegedly engaged in organising, recruiting, propagating ideology, and planning activities in consultation with Maoist leadership.

In Hany Babu’s case, Frontline reports that NIA alleged that he had “deep involvement” with CPI (Maoist) and purported front organisations such as Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). They accused him of facilitating coordination, communication, and perhaps recruiting or organising under the guise of academic/social-justice work.

On July 28, 2020,  Hany Babu was arrested on the accusation for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121, (waging, attempting or abetting waging of war against the Government of India) , 124A (Sedition), 153A ( promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, place of birth, etc) , 115 (Abetment of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life- if not committed), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18A (organising of terrorist camps), 20 (being member of terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (membership of terrorist organisation) and 39 (support given to terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. (Read Sabrang’s previous coverage on Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members)

On 19 September 2022, a division bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices N. R. Borkar and N. J. Jamdar) rejected Babu’s regular bail plea, alleging his ‘direct involvement’ in the.  Babu then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India (SC). However, on 3 May 2024, he withdrew the SLP, opting instead to approach the Bombay High Court again, in light of changed circumstances, namely that several co-accused had since been granted bail.

After a reversal of order on 3rd Oct, 2025, BHC finally granted bail on 4th December, 2025.

Contentious Forensic Evidence

One of the most contentious and legally critical aspects of the case is the reliance on digital evidence, particularly materials allegedly recovered from the laptops/computers of the accused persons.

The Caravan, in an interview with Hany Babu, reports how only 2 books were seized from his bookshelf, which were books related to GN Saibaba’s arrest.

For analysing the integrity of the digital evidence, Independent forensic firms, notably a US-based firm, Arsenal Consulting, engaged by the defence, concluded that at least some of the devices seized were compromised well before seizure, via remote-access malware. In particular, the device of co-accused Rona Wilson was found to have been infected by a remote-access trojan (RAT) which could have allowed third-party actors (hackers) to plant incriminating files without the user’s knowledge.

Experts have also pointed to the absence of proper forensic safeguards: no contemporaneous hash-value recording at time of seizure, no secure chain-of-custody protocols, and repeated vulnerabilities in how the state forensic labs handled the data.

This raises a fundamental question: if evidence may have been planted remotely, can it form a reliable basis for charging people with terrorism, conspiracy or membership of banned organisations? Critics argue the answer should be no, or at least the court must insist on independent re-forensic audits. Many civil-society, digital-rights and human rights organisations, as well as academics, see the case as a stark example of “investigative overreach.”

Procedural History, Bail Denials and Relief to the Accused

Over the years, other accused have secured various forms of release: bail, medical bail, house arrest, or default bail. Some key examples:

• Sudha Bharadwaj — granted bail by special NIA court in December 2021 after over three years in jail.
• Varavara Rao (elderly poet-activist) — granted medical bail in May 2021.
• Anand Teltumbde — granted bail by Bombay High Court in November 2022.
• Gautam Navlakha — released on house arrest (later bail) per Supreme Court order in 2024.

These developments reflect a gradual, though uneven, judicial acceptance that indefinite pre-trial detention under UAPA may not be sustainable, especially given long delays, weak evidence, and possible procedural or forensic infirmities.

Significance of the 2025 Bail Order for Hany Babu – Legal & Political

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Hany Babu represents a legally and politically significant moment in the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions, particularly given the long pattern of bail denials under the UAPA, where courts have often accepted the prosecution’s case at face value at the pre-trial stage. By intervening after years of prolonged incarceration, the order signals a renewed judicial willingness to treat personal liberty as a substantive constitutional guarantee rather than an abstract principle that must yield to the severity of the charges.

It also reinforces a growing line of jurisprudence visible in recent Supreme Court and High Court decisions that recognises that under UAPA, where trials can stretch over decades, pre-trial detention must not be permitted to operate as de facto punishment. Politically, the decision comes at a time when the foundational claims of the Bhima Koregaon investigation have been shaken by multiple independent digital forensic analyses indicating that key incriminating files on co-accused devices were likely planted through sophisticated malware attacks.

Against this backdrop, the bail order may be read as an acknowledgement of the dangers of excessive reliance on contested digital evidence and the need for heightened judicial scrutiny in cases built around electronic material. More broadly, the ruling underscores enduring constitutional anxieties around the criminalisation of dissent, surveillance-driven investigation, and the shrinking space for academic freedom and civil liberties. In doing so, it places the spotlight back on the core democratic concern that national security laws must not be used to stifle legitimate political expression or to detain individuals indefinitely without trial.

The bail order granting bail to Hany Babu may be read here.

Broader Constitutional and Human Rights Concerns

The Elgar Parishad case, and the recent bail order for Hany Babu, raise profound constitutional and human-rights questions:

1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
   • The prolonged pre-trial detention of Hany Babu under the UAPA directly implicates Article 21, which has been repeatedly strained as incarceration stretches into years without trial.
   • The case underscores how UAPA’s stringent bail conditions risk converting pre-trial custody into punishment.
2. Article 22 – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest & Detention
   • The heavy procedural restrictions under the UAPA dilute safeguards envisioned under Article 22, including timely production before a magistrate and meaningful opportunities to seek bail.
   • The difficulty of challenging the prosecution’s case at the bail stage restricts the accused’s ability to exercise constitutional protections.
3. Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) – Freedom of Speech, Assembly & Association
   • Many accused, including Babu, were engaged in academic, human rights, or cultural work—activities protected under Article 19.
   • The characterisation of dissent, research, social justice advocacy, or association with civil liberties groups as “Maoist links” raises concerns about criminalising constitutionally protected expression.
4. Academic Freedom as Part of Article 19(1)(a)
   • Babu’s position as a university professor brings into focus the chilling effect such prosecutions have on academic inquiry and the freedom to engage with controversial or critical political ideas.
   • Criminalising academic networks or scholarly communication undermines the constitutionally recognised value of intellectual freedom.
5. Article 14 – Equality Before the Law & Protection Against Arbitrary State Action
   • Allegations of planted evidence and compromised digital devices raise serious questions about arbitrary or unfair investigative practices.
   • Article 14 requires investigations to be free of bias, fabrication, and selective targeting—standards potentially violated in the Bhima Koregaon probe.
6. Due Process & Fair Trial Rights (Articles 14 & 21 read together)
   • Extraordinary delays in filing chargesheets, framing charges, and commencing trial jeopardise the right to a fair and timely trial.
   • The case exemplifies systemic concerns over investigative overreach, reliance on contested digital evidence, and inadequate judicial oversight; issues that collectively erode due process protections.
7. Risk of Criminalising Dissent & Shrinking Civic Space
   • The prosecution narrative reflects a broader pattern where activists, lawyers, academics, and cultural workers face national-security charges for political or ideological opposition.
   • This drift signals a constitutional danger where UAPA becomes a tool to suppress dissent rather than genuinely combat terrorism.

In conclusion, the case highlights systemic faults in India’s criminal justice system when dealing with UAPA: over-broad charges, misuse of digital evidence, poor forensic standards, unlimited pre-trial detention, delayed trials, and weak institutional safeguards. While the Hany Babu bail marks a turning point in the history of pre-trial detention cases, the real challenge arises when the trial begins. Mere bail does not lead to acquittal. Ultimately, the case is emblematic of the tension between national security discourse and constitutional democracy: a test of whether India’s liberal democratic institutions can resist attempts to criminalise dissent.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

[1] This hate-spewing supremacist surfaced once again after a period of relative silence—17 years to be precise– on January 1, 2018 when the violence unleashed against peaceful Dalits assembled at Bhima Koregaon to commemorate 200 years of the battle, was reportedly provoked by the machinations of extremists of the Hindutva brigade. Ironically, a month later, in February 2018, the Supreme Court criticised the Maharashtra state government and probe agencies for the slow progress in their probe against Milind Ekbote, questioning the agencies’ claims that he was allegedly ‘untraceable’. At the time the BJP’s Devendra Phadnavis was Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: NIA court denies bail to Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members

Bhima Koregaon case: Prof Hany Babu to remain in pvt hospital till June 15

Seek court’s permission before discharging Hany Babu: Bombay HC

Not Proscribed, Not Prima Facie: The labyrinth of bail under UAPA