After spending nearly seven years in jail, activists Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale were finally released from Taloja Jail in Navi Mumbai on January 24, 2025. Their release came over two weeks after the Bombay High Court granted them bail in the controversial Bhima Koregaon case on January 8. The court noted the activists had been incarcerated since 2018, with no realistic hope of their trial concluding anytime soon—a grim reflection of India’s justice system and its treatment of dissenters.
Sudhir Dhawale, a Dalit rights advocate, poet, and publisher of the Left-leaning Marathi magazine Vidrohi, and Rona Wilson, a Kerala-based activist and founding member of the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners, represent the human cost of a deeply flawed and punitive legal system. Both were part of a group of 16 intellectuals, activists, and lawyers arrested under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for their alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence and purported links to the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist). These charges, widely criticised as politically motivated, led to their prolonged incarceration without trial.
Wilson and Dhawale’s release at 1:30 pm, after completing bail formalities, was bittersweet. It underscored the agonising delay in justice for political prisoners in India, many of whom remain behind bars for merely exercising their right to dissent. The bail conditions imposed by the court—a ₹1 lakh surety, weekly appearances at the National Investigation Agency’s headquarters, surrender of their passports, and restrictions on travel outside Mumbai—serve as a reminder of how the system continues to control and limit their freedom.
Their case highlights not just the weaponisation of the legal process against activists but also the glaring delays and inequities in the Indian judiciary. The release of Wilson and Dhawale is a small but significant victory, the first to receive bail on account of delay, yet it remains overshadowed by the years of their lives lost and the continuing struggles of those who remain in jail under similarly dubious charges.
Rona Jacob Wilson v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Rona Jacob Wilson v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. represents a nuanced intersection of procedural law, constitutional rights, and judicial discretion. This order granted bail to the appellant, Rona Jacob Wilson, who had been incarcerated for over six and a half years under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and other penal statutes.
Background and case details
The charges and context of arrest: The appellant, Rona Jacob Wilson, was implicated in the Bhima Koregaon case, a matter that has drawn significant legal and political attention. He was arrested on 6 June 2018 under charges including Sections 153(A), 505(1)(B), 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18(B), 20, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA. These charges relate to promoting enmity between groups, conspiracy, and alleged involvement in acts of terrorism.
The case, originally investigated by the Pune Police, was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) owing to its complexity and the gravity of allegations. The NIA contended that Wilson, as a co-conspirator, was part of a larger plot involving Maoist groups intending to destabilise the nation.
Prolonged pre-trial detention: By the time the appeal for bail was heard, the appellant had spent over six and a half years in pre-trial detention without charges being framed. The prosecution’s case involved an extensive witness list of approximately 363 individuals, making the prospect of an early trial conclusion unlikely. Despite filing several charge sheets, the procedural stages of trial—such as addressing discharge applications filed by co-accused—remained incomplete, further delaying the framing of charges.
Legal framework and judicial reasoning
Prolonged incarceration and Article 21: The court noted that the appellant’s primary argument rested on the violation of his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which encompasses the right to a fair and speedy trial. The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb provided pivotal guidance. This landmark ruling established that even under special legislations like the UAPA, prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights and may justify the grant of bail.
The court extensively cited K.A. Najeeb and earlier cases, such as:
- Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1996) – Gross delays in trials under special laws, such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), were held to justify bail based on Article 21.
- Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994) – Highlighted that undertrials cannot be indefinitely detained pending trial, particularly when the possibility of early resolution is remote.
- Babba v. State of Maharashtra (2005) – Granted bail where delays in trial under special statutes were unreasonable.
The Bombay High Court applied these precedents to hold that constitutional protections take precedence over statutory restrictions when fundamental rights are at stake.
Evaluation of charges and sentence: The court acknowledged that under Section 13 of the UAPA, the maximum sentence was seven years, which aligned closely with the appellant’s period of incarceration. It further noted that for the specific offences attributed to the appellant, no minimum sentence was prescribed, making the prolonged detention disproportionate. This weighed heavily in favour of granting bail.
Arguments by the prosecution: The NIA, represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India, argued that delays were not solely attributable to the prosecution. Factors such as discharge applications filed by co-accused and the complexity of the case contributed to the prolonged timeline. While conceding that procedural delays existed, the prosecution maintained that the appellant’s role in a serious conspiracy justified continued detention.
Bail conditions and final order
Bail was granted with stringent conditions to mitigate any potential interference with the trial:
- The appellant was required to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with solvent sureties.
- He was prohibited from tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses.
- He had to report to the NIA office in Mumbai on the first Monday of every month.
- His travel was restricted to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court unless permitted otherwise.
- The appellant was directed to surrender his passport before release and provide a permanent contact number.
Recognising the procedural delays, the court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, specifically mandating that the stage of framing charges be completed within nine months. Importantly, the court clarified that the bail order was based solely on the appellant’s prolonged incarceration without trial and not on the merits of the allegations. This distinction underscored the judiciary’s focus on procedural justice rather than prejudging the appellant’s innocence or guilt.
This judgment exemplifies the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional rights, even in cases involving national security. The court reaffirmed that:
- Constitutional supremacy – Provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which impose stringent bail conditions, must harmonise with constitutional safeguards, especially when delays threaten the right to a fair trial.
- Balancing justice – The decision balances the need to uphold national security with the individual’s right to liberty, setting an important precedent for undertrials facing indefinite detention under special laws.
This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in the criminal justice system and serves as a reminder that justice delayed can amount to justice denied, even under the framework of anti-terror legislations.
The complete order may be read here.
Sudhir Dhavale Vs. the State of Maharashtra & anr
Background and case details
The charges and context of arrest: The appeal was filed by the appellant Dhavale seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., after being incarcerated since June 6, 2018. The appellant’s case is part of a larger investigation into offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The trial has been delayed, and the appellant argues that his prolonged incarceration without trial, without any clear timeline for the completion of the trial, justifies his release on bail.
The case involves serious charges such as promoting enmity between different groups (Section 153A IPC), creating public mischief (Section 505 IPC), and various provisions of UAPA related to terrorist activities and conspiracies. The investigation was transferred to the NIA, and the trial is currently pending before the Special Court.
Arguments presented by the appellant: The appellant’s counsel argued that the prolonged detention of over six years without trial violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. He stated that the trial court has not framed charges yet, and given the likelihood of the trial being delayed further, the appellant should be released on bail on this ground alone.
Legal framework and judicial reasoning
Article 21 of the Constitution: The right to a speedy trial is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged incarceration without trial can be a violation of this right, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time.
UAPA and Bail Provisions: Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA places a bar on granting bail in cases involving certain terrorist activities, stating that the accused shall not be released on bail if there is a reasonable ground to believe that they have committed the alleged offence. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that the constitutional right to a speedy trial takes precedence if the trial is delayed unjustifiably.
Arguments by the prosecution: Mr. Vyas, representing the NIA, acknowledged the delay but explained that the delay in the trial process was partly due to the filing of discharge applications by other accused, which slowed the progress of framing charges. The prosecution, however, expressed willingness to abide by the court’s decision.
Prolonged incarceration: The court observed that the appellant has been in custody for over six years without trial, and the likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future was remote. Given the delay, the court found that the prolonged incarceration without trial could be seen as a violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights under Article 21, justifying bail.
Reference to Supreme Court judgment: The bench cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb to underline that prolonged pre-trial detention, where the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, can justify granting bail. The Court referenced several decisions where undertrials were granted bail due to the unlikelihood of their trials concluding in a reasonable time. The principles from this case are now settled law and form the core basis of granting bail in situations of prolonged incarceration.
Balancing rights and societal interests: The Court carefully balanced the appellant’s constitutional right to liberty against the interests of justice and public safety. It reiterated that while special legislations like UAPA impose strict bail conditions, the violation of fundamental rights due to excessive delay in trials cannot be ignored.
Bail conditions and final order
The bail conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court in the present case were:
- The appellant is directed to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- with one or more solvent local sureties to make up the amount.
- The appellant shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner.
- Before release from jail, the appellant must inform the NIA, Mumbai, and the trial court of their prospective place of residence.
- After release, the appellant shall attend the NIA office in Mumbai on the first Monday of every calendar month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to mark their presence, continuing until the conclusion of the trial.
- The appellant is prohibited from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court without prior permission from the trial court.
- The appellant must attend all trial court dates unless precluded on medical grounds.
- The appellant is required to surrender their passport, if in possession, before the trial court prior to release from jail.
- The appellant must provide their mobile and/or landline number to the NIA, Mumbai, and the trial court, ensuring they can be contacted.
The judgment reinforces the principle that an individual’s right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In cases of prolonged detention without trial, the courts are obligated to take steps to ensure that such detention does not continue indefinitely, as it constitutes a violation of constitutional rights. Furthermore, tThis judgment will serve as a critical reference in future cases where there are delays in the trial process, particularly in matters involving national security laws like UAPA. The case reaffirms the need for courts to act swiftly to avoid undue prejudice to the accused while also balancing public safety concerns.
Additionally, the decision calls for the expeditious handling of cases involving serious charges like those under UAPA. The Court specifically requested the trial court to expedite the framing of charges within a set timeline of 9 months, indicating that delays in the judicial process will no longer be tolerated, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
The complete order may be read here.
Related:
Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed
Bombay High Court grants bail to Rona Wilson and Sudhir Dhawale in Bhima Koregaon case
Kin of incarcerated anti-CAA activists question Selective use of ‘Bail is the Rule’ principle
Apex court says excessive bail conditions, amounts to no bail