Background of the case

Mahesh Raut, a land and forest rights activist, has been extensively involved with Gram Sabhas in the mining regions of Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. His activism centres on empowering local communities and protecting their rights against encroachments by mining corporations.

On June 6, 2018, Mahesh Raut, along with five other individuals, was arrested by the Pune police. The charges against them included spreading Maoist ideology, funding banned organizations, and recruiting individuals for the Maoists. These arrests were part of a broader investigation into the Bhima Koregaon violence that occurred in January 2018, which led to clashes between Dalit and Maratha communities.

The Pune police alleged that inflammatory speeches at the Elgar Parishad event held on December 31, 2017, in Pune, triggered the violence. The event was organized to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon, a significant event for the Dalit community. According to the authorities, Raut and others were implicated based on letters and emails retrieved from their electronic devices, allegedly linking them to Maoist activities.

Mahesh Raut, along with other accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, faces several serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Procedural history

In November 2019, a session’s court in Pune rejected the bail applications of the accused, including Raut, citing prima facie evidence suggesting their involvement in activities aimed at undermining democracy in India.

In November 2021, an NIA court rejected Raut’s bail application, noting the National Investigation Agency (NIA)’s submission that his name appeared in a letter retrieved from co-accused Rona Wilson’s computer. Raut contested this, arguing that the letter’s authenticity was questionable due to forensic reports indicating malware infiltration in Wilson’s electronic devices.

In April 2022, Raut sought discharge from the charges, claiming that the evidence (letters) against him was compromised and tampered with. Despite this, the Bombay High Court in May 2022 dismissed a petition reviewing its earlier order denying default bail to Raut and others.

On September 21, 2023, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Raut but stayed the order for a week to allow the NIA to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On September 27, 2023, the Supreme Court admitted the NIA’s appeal against Raut’s bail and extended the stay on the High Court’s order.

As of June 2024, Mahesh Raut remains in judicial custody at Taloja Central Jail, awaiting trial. He recently sought interim bail from the Supreme Court to attend his grandmother’s last rites, and the hearing was scheduled for June 21, 2023. The Supreme Court has repeatedly extended the stay on the Bombay High Court’s bail order, pending further hearings and decisions.

Court proceedings for interim bail

Advocate Aparna Bhat, representing Raut, presented the case, emphasising that the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Raut, although the order was subsequently stayed by the Supreme Court. She highlighted the recent passing of Raut’s grandmother in late May and the necessity for him to participate in the remaining ceremonies.

Justice Nath addressed the NIA counsel, seeking their submissions. The NIA counsel argued against the urgency of the interim bail, questioning the necessity of approaching the Supreme Court instead of waiting for parole. Justice Nath explained that the pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) and the stay granted by the Supreme Court justified the immediate hearing.

Justice Bhatti noted that applications for interim bail under such special circumstances should be considered, clarifying that this was not a request for regular bail but a temporary measure to allow Raut to fulfil family obligations. The court acknowledged the significance of the ceremonies scheduled for June 29-30 and July 5-6.

Court’s decision

Justice Nath dictated the order, noting the facts and circumstances of the case, including the period of incarceration Raut had already undergone and the specific nature of his request. The bench expressed its inclination to grant interim bail for two weeks, from June 26 to July 10. The terms and conditions of the bail were delegated to the Special or Trial Court, with the NIA given the opportunity to suggest stringent conditions to prevent any misuse.

Justice Nath emphasized that Raut must surrender without fail on July 10, concluding the court’s decision to grant the interim relief.

“Considering facts and circumstances, and period of incarceration already undergone, and nature of request made, we are inclined to grant interim bail of 2 weeks to applicant, which may commence from 26 June and end on 10 July. Terms and conditions may be determined by Special/Trial Court. NIA may impress upon the court to impose stringent conditions (as necessary). Applicant shall surrender without fail on 10 July.”

Case citation: National Investigation Agency v. Mahesh Sitaram Raut Crl.A. No. 003048 / 2023

Related:

Gautam Navlakha granted bail by Supreme Court in Bhima Koregaon case; orders him to pay 20 lakhs for the expenses incurred during his house arrest

Bhima Koregaon case: Why did Bombay HC grant bail to Sudha Bharadwaj, but not her co-accused?

Bhima Koregaon Case: Mahesh Raut, youngest accused, granted bail by the Bombay HC!

Bail not Jail, India’s constitutional courts’ bumpy ride towards personal liberty

Punjab & Haryana HC: Duty of the court to be more onerous, bail cannot be denied just because serious allegations

The post Bhima Koregaon Case: Relief for activist as Supreme Court allows for interim bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court, on November 18, granted bail to Prof. Anand Teltumbde, accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, making it the first judgement, among 16 accused, to be granted on merits. The bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav held that no prima facie case was made out against Teltumbde to establish that he was involved in any terrorist acts. Charges had been invoked against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court held that offences under section 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act) and 18 (conspiracy) of the UAPA are not made out against him.

Dr Anand Teltumbde (appellant), a Dalit scholar and former IIT professor, was in appeal before the court against the order passed by the Special NIA court on July 12, 2021, whereby the trial court had denied him regular bail.

However, the path-breaking bail order of the Bombay High Court, has been stayed by the court for a week as the NIA sought time to move the Supreme Court in appeal against the order. This means the appellant will not be released from prison until the outcome of the NIA’s appeal against bail. He is currently lodged at the Taloja Prison, Navi Mumbai.

The Case

The case against Teltumbde is that he was the convener of Elgar Parishad conference held on December 31, 2017 which led to clashes in Bhima Koregaon resulting in one person’s death. When the police probed further and the NIA took over the case, it was alleged that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister. The NIA also alleges that Teltumbde is an active member of CPI (Maoists) and also linked him to his late brother, Milind, who was the Secretary of the (Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh-Chhattisgarh) unit of the banned CPI(M). He was shot  at last year by security forces. Teltumbde asserted that he is critical of Maoist ideology and that he had broken contact with his late brother for 25 years.

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared and argued for the appellant, assisted by advocate Ms Devyani Kulkarni, while Special Public Prosecutor Sandesh Patil appeared for the National investigating Agency (NIA) and J.S. Lohakare, APP for the State of Maharashtra.

Findings 

• Association with the CPI(Maoist) organization:

The court carefully perused through documents submitted by the NIA to ascertain whether a prima facie case can be made out against the appellant or not. Amongst the documents submitted were the NIA’s compilation of the letters addressed to the appellant by one Prakash and the other one by the Director of the Institute where the appellant is employed. The former letter states that the Central Committee (CC) is pleased with the progress that (Comrade Anand) has made on the Dalit campaign and it calls upon to explore more opportunities to propagate the issue on the international front. The latter letter contains the details of all the appellant’s travel itinerary and expenses which are reimbursed by the Institute. The court held that Prima facie reading of both the letters reveal that Appellant has travelled extensively from 11.07.2016 to 05.03.2020 while on leave and being out of office on his own expenses or on the expenses of his employer institute on at least 64 occasions. (Para 18.1.1)

The NIA had also submitted letters where the appellant is referred to as Comrade Anand, and letters that have been shared by other accused wherein the appellant is referred to, before and after the Bhima Koregaon incident. (Para 18.2)

In pursuance to this line of argument, the court observed that the Appellant is a man of intellectual prominence in the field of Dalit ideology / movement and merely because he is the elder brother of wanted accused Milind Teltumbde who had gone underground 30 years ago to espouse the cause of CPI(Maoist) cannot be a sole ground to indict the Appellant and link him to the activities of CPI(Maoist). On reading the letters as it is we cannot presume that Appellant is an active member of CPI(Maoist) without there been any other material to corroborate and support such a theory. Thus, the prima facie role of the Professor could not be established before the court.

In regards to the accounts statements submitted by the NIA, the court held that those statements were unsigned, and proofs of certain transactions were missing. Hence, again, a prima facie case court not be established. (Para 18.5)

• Association with the Elgar Parishad programme:

The NIA had submitted to the court that the invite for the Elgar Parishad programme had the name of the appellant. On this particular accusation, the court observed that there were more than 100 names mentioned as ‘Nimantrak’ i.e. inviter. The court then found that, NIA had indicted the role of Appellant and some others as accused whose names appear in the pamphlet but not all inviters who are facing similar allegations as that of Appellant, on the basis of this document.(Para 18.4.1)

• Association with younger brother, Milind Teltumbde

The NIA had referred to three statements of witnesses recorded in support of its case and show that the appellant were in constant touch with his younger brother. After perusal of the three statements, the court had observed that there is lack of concrete evidence to show the same. Through the statement, it could only be proved that the appellant was a participant with the CPI(Maoist), which would attract the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 and not Section 15 of the UAP Act.(Para 19)

The bail plea

According to the bail petition, the prosecution claimed that it was found during the Swargate Police Station, Pune investigation, the appellant and other accused individuals planned the Elgar Parishad meeting in Pune on December 31, 2017, using the Bhima Koregaon Shauryadin Prerna Abhiyan (or “BKSPA”), to advance the goals of the outlawed group of Communist Party of India (Maoist)[1]. However, the prosecution claimed that the Elgar Parishad was organized by Dalit and human rights organizations, where the appellant and other accused persons attempted to gather a crowd in order to “foster animosity” against the government, after the case was turned over to the National Investigation Agency (or “NIA”), according to the petition.

The petition drew attention to the inconsistency by pointing out that the chargesheet submitted by the NIA does not identify BKSPA as a frontal organization of the CPI (Maoist), and yet the Elgar Parishad was established per the CPI(Maoist)’s instructions.

Further, the petition highlighted that the statements of persons recorded under Section 161 (examination of witnesses by police) of the Criminal Procedure Code and named in the list of prosecution witnesses provided that the donations for the Elgar Parishad were made by volunteers and individuals from the public. The prosecution’s claim that the program was supported by the CPI (Maoist) to pursue its own objective is refuted by the witness statements, according to the petition. The appellant refuted the prosecution’s assertion that he served as the Elgar Parishad convener in his petition. In the petition, it was said that he disapproved of the pamphlets and goals of the Elgar Parishad and that he had written an article demonstrating his intellectual independence and separation from either Bhima Koregaon or the Elgar Parishad. The petition further alleged that there was no proof or witness testimony demonstrating his participation as a convener or in the Elgar Parishad’s planning.

The prosecution’s claim that the appellant attended an Elgar Parishad gathering on December 31, 2017, was vigorously refuted in the bail motion. The petition claims that the appellant left Pune, where the event was held, before it even started. The appeal petition emphasized that none of the witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s assertions that any of the artists at Elgar Parishad uttered hateful or inflammatory remarks.

The petition noted that the NIA used lengthy quotations from documents, books, and articles explaining the operation of the CPI (Maoist) that were freely available online in the second supplementary chargesheet, alleging that these materials were incriminating and had been taken from co-accused researcher and activist Rona Wilson. The appeal petition, however, remarked that the prosecution fails to specify any act or omission that can be attributed to the appellant or other co-accused persons in formulating, directing, participating, or implementing the policy of CPI (Maoist).

The petition provides an in-depth explanation refuting the prosecution’s allegations of the appellant’s role in propagating the agenda of CPI (Maoist) through international conferences, communication with other co-accused persons, receiving funds from the CPI (Maoist) and conducting fact-finding missions as a part of frontal organisations of the CPI (Maoist).

The decision of the Court:

At the outset, the court noted that as per section 43-D(5) of UAPA, it cannot grant bail, “if, on a perusal of the case diary, or the charge-sheet, it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.”

After perusing the material placed on record and the chargesheet, the Bombay High Court noted that prima facie the five letters cited against the appellant, allegedly recovered from co-accused Rona Wilson’s laptop would fall under the “realm of presumption” which would need “further corroboration.” The court reached the prima facie opinion that, on the basis of material placed before us by NIA, it cannot be concluded that Appellant has indulged into a terrorist act. Thus, the material placed on record prima facie did not inspire lead to the court prescribing the punishment for the appellant under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA. The court also observed that the case of the appellant was not identical to that of Jyoti Jagtap or Hany Babu, as contended by the NIA, since only 5 documents (letters) and 3 key witness statement are used against the appellant.

“25. In view of the above discussion and findings, we are of the prima facie opinion that on the basis of material placed before us by NIA which has been looked into by us, it cannot be concluded that Appellant has indulged into a terrorist act. The material placed on record prima facie does not inspire confidence to bring the Appellant’s act as alleged for the punishment prescribed under Sections 16, 18and 20 of the UAP Act as they read,” the court held. (Para 25)

The Court quashed the impugned order of July 12, 2021 of the Special Court denying bail to the appellant. The Court ordered that the appellant be granted bail on his executing PR bond of Rs.1,00,000/-with one or more solvent local sureties in the like amount and imposed the following conditions for bail:

1. Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence of prosecution nor influence the prosecution witnesses;
2. Before his actual release from jail Appellant shall furnish his contact numbers, both-mobile and landline and permanent residential address to the Investigating Officer and the learned Special Court before which the case of Appellant is pending
3. Appellant shall attend the concerned police station where he resides, initially for a period of one year, once in a fortnight and thereafter on every first Monday, till conclusion of trial
4. Appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of State of Goa and if he desires to travel within India he shall seek prior leave and permission of the Trial Court;
5. Appellant shall deposit his passport held by him before his actual release from jail, with the designated Special Court.

It will be three days before Dr Anand Teltumbde, a renowned academic will know his fate. On November 25, the Supreme Court of India will hear the NIA appeal against the Bombay High Court order.

The order of the Bombay High Court may be read here.

The post “No prima facie case,” says Bom HC granting bail to Anand Teltumbde on merits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court on Monday denied bail to Jyoti Jagtap, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad Case under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Jyoti Jagtap, 32, is reportedly a member of Kabir Kala Manch (KKM) — a cultural group branded as a front organisation of the banned CPI (Maoist). She was arrested by the NIA in September, 2020. According to NIA, it was Jagtap and others organised the Elgar Parishad on December 31, 2017 that led to violence the following day, reports LiveLaw.

A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Milind Jadhav pronounced the order. “Appeal dismissed,” said the court, adding that NIA’s allegations were prima facie true. In her bail application, filed through advocate Kritika Aggarwal, Jagtap had stated she is an artist and singer from a marginalised section and had worked with several NGOs. Moreover, said she was available and not absconding. Moreover, she had not been named in the first charge sheet filed in the case by the Pune Police.

She had also averred in her bail application that, while the case was subsequently transferred to NIA, the agency hadn’t unearthed anything new against her, warranting the arrest, she argued. Senior Advocate Mihir Desai for Jagtap submitted that using the concept of front organisation is wrong. “Frontal organisations has to be notified (as a banned organisation) in some form and by its very nature means that not everybody is part of the main organisation. Frontal organisations are controlled by the party, but not everybody may be part of it,” Desai said.

The NIA, which was represented by advocate Sandesh Patil, submitted that accused Milind Teltumbde, who died last year, had discussed the Elgar Parishad event with the three Kabir Kala Manch members. It also claimed Maoist ideology was spread at the event with the help of these three and other persons. Jagtap was one of the main conspirators, alleged the agency. The agency also accused Jagtap of undergoing arms training at the Korchi forest.

In its reply, the NIA said Jagtap was one of the main conspirators and an active member of the banned CPI (Maoist) working in an urban area through the frontal organisation Kabir Kala Manch and she was also in touch with the co-accused. Making an over-arching case on national security, the NIA had stated that, “Act committed by the appellant is against the interest of the nation which for any reason cannot be overlooked whatsoever,” while seeking the bail appeal’s dismissal.

Jagtap refuted these allegations by arguing that the agency hadn’t produced anything on record to show she was a member of KKM, let alone anything to show she was working to further CPI (Maoist) agenda.

Bombay High Court order can be read here.

Related:

Bhima Koregaon case: NIA files draft charges under UAPA, sedition & conspiracy against 15 accused

Bhima Koregaon case: Was evidence planted to implicate activists?

Mahesh Raut, Bhima Koregaon-11’s youngest activist spends another birthday in prison

The post Jyoti Jagtap denied bail: Elgar Parishad case, Bombay High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai: A special NIA court here on Monday rejected the bail plea of human rights activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elghar Parishad-Maoist links case.

Navlakha, arrested on August 28, 2018, moved the court for bail more than six months ago and in his plea has also cited health issues while seeking relief. He was initially kept under house arrest, but was later sent to judicial custody and lodged at the Taloja prison in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which is probing the case, had earlier vehemently opposed the human rights activist’s plea for bail and described him as a member of the outlawed Communist Party of India (Maoist).

Special NIA court Judge Rajesh J Katariya, who previously heard prosecution and defence arguments over the matter, on Monday rejected Navlakha’s bail plea.

Details of the order were not yet available.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the ‘Elgar Parishad’ conclave, held at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the  outskirts of the western Maharashtra city, located around 200km from Mumbai.

The Pune police, which probed the case initially, had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists. The NIA later took over the probe into the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians were named as accused.

Navlakha and several other activists were charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The human rights activist had moved the court for bail in February through his advocate Yug Chaudhry on the merits of the case.

As per the NIA, Navlakha “inculcated” Maoist sympathies among students and others.

Navlakha’s plea said his activities, at the most, border only on communication, which is wholly “insufficient” to attract any charges under UAPA, an anti-terror law.

Further, Navlakha’s plea said the NIA charge-sheet fails to connect him with a larger conspiracy.

The plea also stated the veteran activist has criticised the Maoists and is implacably opposed to Naxal violence as his published writings (which pre-date his arrest) show.

There was no material in the entire charge-sheet which shows the  applicant has in any manner intended or supported a claim of cessation or caused any disaffection towards or against India or committed any act which disrupts the sovereignty or territorial integrity of India, the plea said.

Further, the plea said the prosecution, through its entire investigation, nowhere speaks of any terrorist act being committed. It added there was not a single allegation against Navlakha of being involved in planning, preparation, procurement, funding or commission of any terrorist act.

As per the plea, there was no material in the charge-sheet to show Navlakha has anywhere, by words either spoken or written or by any visible representation, attempted to bring hatred, disaffection against the Government of India.

The activist’s bail plea claimed he suffers from high blood pressure and other ailments, including a lump in the chest, severe pain in the neck and lower back, and has a history of intestinal polyps.

Navlakha has been in jail since April 14, 2020, and there was no need to keep him in custody as the probe into the case has been completed, his bail plea contended.

It also said the trial, once it starts, is going to take a long time to complete as there are 15 accused persons, and the charge-sheet is a 30,000-page document with over 150 witnesses.

“To continue to subject the applicant to prison custody at his advanced age until the trial is completed would be extremely unjust, harsh and cruel and antithetical to the spirit of justice,” the bail plea added.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Elgar Case: Special NIA Court Denies Bail to Activist Gautam Navlakha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Mumbai: A special court here has directed poet-activist P Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case who was recently granted bail on medical ground by the Supreme Court, to reside in Mumbai and not to leave the city without its permission.

It also restricted Rao from having a “gathering of visitors” at his residence in Mumbai, and asked him not to indulge in any “criminal activities, similar to the case against him or otherwise” and not to contact any co-accused in the case or any other person involved in similar activities.

The apex court had granted bail to Rao on August 10.        

His bail conditions were set by the special court hearing cases related to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) recently, the details of which were made available on Saturday.

The bail conditions mandate Rao to reside within the area of greater Mumbai and not leave the city without prior permission of the NIA court.

He shall furnish the detailed address of his residence in greater Mumbai and his contact number, along with the numbers of his three close relatives and persons residing with him, the court said.

It directed the accused not to make any statement to media – be it print, electronic and social – regarding the case.

He shall not commit any other offence either of similar or any other nature and not indulge in any activity regarding which present crime is registered against him, the court said.

Further, Rao has been directed not to contact or communicate with the co-accused or any other person involved in similar activities.

He shall not make any call either domestic or international to any person indulging in similar activities through any mode of communication, Rao’s bail condition reads.

The accused has been asked not to tamper the prosecution witnesses, either personally or through any other person.

He shall not abscond or try to flee away from justice. There shall not be any gathering of visitors where applicant shall reside at greater Mumbai, the court said.

The court has asked the accused to furnish a fresh bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties in the like amount.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.

The Pune Police had also claimed the conclave was organised by people with alleged Maoist links. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) later took over the probe in the matter.

Rao was arrested on August 28, 2018 from his Hyderabad residence and is an under-trial in the case. An FIR was lodged by the Pune Police on January 8, 2018 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Stay in Mumbai, No Gathering Visitors at Home, Don’t Contact Co-Accused: Varavara Rao Bail Terms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a bitter-sweet development in the Bhima Koregaon case, activist Sudha Bharadwaj was granted bail by the Bombay High Court on December 1, 2021. However, bail pleas of eight other accused in the case were rejected. These include Sudhir Dhawale, Mahesh Raut, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling and Varavara Rao.

Bharadwaj will next be produced before a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on December 8, for determining bail conditions before she is released from jail. Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar had been hearing her plea for default bail, and had reserved judgment in August. Bharadwaj had sought default bail under section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The section deals with the jurisdiction of a judge who is either trying the case or authorising detention of the accused.

Bharadwaj, through her counsel Advocate Yug Chaudhry, sought for the setting aside of an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge KD Vadane on the grounds that Vadane had not been appointed as a special judge under the NIA Act. It was Judge Vadane’s 2018 order that extended the time for filing a chargesheet. A chargesheet needs to be filed within 90 days of detention, but because of the impugned order Bharadwaj was forced to remain behind bars despite the lapse of the deadline. The trial court also took cognizance of a 1800-page supplementary chargesheet in February 2019, which the petitioners contend should not have been permitted given the previous argument related to the original chargesheet.

The state government, represented by Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, meanwhile argued that the NIA judge was needed only at the trial stage, and not the pre-trial stage. Arguing for the NIA, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, opposed the default bail plea, claiming the 90-day extension granted to Pune Police in 2018 to file a chargesheet in the case did not cause any prejudice to the rights of the accused.

It is noteworthy that trial in this high-profile case, where nearly a dozen activists and human rights defenders are facing charges under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), is yet to commence. One of the accused, Jesuit priest and Adivasi rights activist Fr. Stan Swamy, has already passed away. Sudha Bharadwaj herself, spent four birthdays in jail and recently turned 60 while still behind bars. She was arrested on August 28, 2018 and has been lodged in Byculla jail since then.

Sudha Bharadwaj has been associated with the trade union movement in Chhattisgarh for more than 25 years, and she is also the general secretary of the Chhattisgarh unit of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and a member of Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS). She has been accused of criminal conspiracy, sedition under the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act charges of funding a terrorist activity, conspiracy, being a member of terrorist gang or organisation, and supporting a terrorist organisation.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

No bail, no trial: Sudha Bharadwaj turns 60 in jail!

Sudha Bharadwaj’s Remarkable Journey: From Trade Unionist and Lawyer to ‘Urban Naxal’

The post Bhima Koregaon case: Bombay HC grants Sudha Bharadwaj bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the sixteen accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence case, Prof. Shoma Sen, has moved the Bombay High Court challenging her prosecution under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as per some media reports.

Sen, the founder of Stree Chetna, a women rights movement and a former professor of English at Nagpur University has alleged that the case against her is based on unfounded, forged, hearsay evidence that was planted on digital devices belonging to co-accused Rona Wilson, which were “illegally” seized by the police in complete violation of the law, as per The Leaflet.

In February this year, activist Rona Wilson moved the High Court after a Massachusetts-based digital forensics firm, analysed an electronic copy of his laptop and arrived at the conclusion that an attacker used malware to infiltrate the laptop and place incriminating evidence on it.

Wilson, who has been accused of writing to a Maoist group leader, discussing the need for guns and ammunition, planning to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has demanded an inquiry by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the possible planting of evidence on his laptop before his arrest on June 6, 2018. His plea is yet to be heard by the Bombay High Court.

In lieu of this revelation, Sen has alleged in her plea that the entire case against her is based only on the said electronic evidence, according to an Indian Express report. She has pointed out that the prosecution (NIA) did not present any other corroborative evidence against her and that the “independent verifications” of the cloned copy of the evidence indicated that the same was “forged, fabricated and planted through dangerous malware”.

According to some news reports, she also referred to the regional Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports that have been silent on the existence of malware or the evidence of tampering and, therefore, making such electronic evidence unreliable.

According to The Leaflet, her plea reads, “The analysis of the FSL is restricted solely to aspects of forensic acquisition of the files, and searching of the hard-disks, without any examination of the source, authenticity, usage, interaction, and related metadata that could establish the origin of the documents therein. Effectively, the only objective of the FSL report is to describe the various files found on the electronic devices that were seized from the accused.”

Her petition reportedly states that the presence of an electronic record on a digital device cannot lead to the presumption that the owner of the digital device was the original source of that electronic record. Instead, an investigation of the source of an electronic record required an analysis of the metadata and technical aspects of that record, and further corroboratory evidence, so as to establish who the originator of that information was, reported The Leaflet.  

Shoma Sen, who has been accused of being a member of the banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) and booked under UAPA, has also contended that the said Act does not recognise frontal organisations and that it only deals with ‘unlawful associations as are notified by the Central Government following due process under Rules 3 and 4’, and ‘unlawful activities’.

“An allegation that an organisation is a frontal organisation is meaningless under the UAPA, and the UAPA does not outlaw frontal organisations, unless these organisations are either notified as an unlawful association, or shown to be carrying out unlawful activities under the Act”, she has argued according to a Leaflet report.  

She was arrested by the Pune Police on June 8, 2018, for her alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence.

Related:

My mother’s name is not even in the charge sheet: Koel Sen

Rona Wilson moves Bombay HC, demands probe into ‘planted evidence’

Bhima Koregaon case: Was evidence planted to implicate activists?

The post Former Professor Shoma Sen moves Bombay HC against UAPA charges appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Concerned over his sinking health, Telugu revolutionary poet Varavara Rao’s wife, Pendaya Hemlatha, has moved the Supreme Court seeking the release of her husband on medical grounds. The 81-year-old renowned literary critic was arrested in the Elgar Parishad case in 2018, and is still lodged at the Taloja jail in Navi Mumbai. 

On Thursday, his wife in her writ petition seeking his release has stated that his continued custody amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment, violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is violative of his dignity in custody, reported the legal new portal LiveLaw. Filed on behalf of Senior Advocate Sunil Fernandes, the writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution states that “Rao’s immediate release is pertinent from Taloja Central Jail, Maharashtra as his health condition is very feeble and that he suffers from various comorbidities,” stated the news report.

SabrangIndia had reported in detail when his condition was critical and he had to be hospitalised in July this year. He had also tested positive for Covid-19, and the National Human Rights Commission had even issued notices to Maharashtra Chief Secretary and Director General (Prisons) seeking his health reports.

According to his wife he still may be suffering from the after effects of Covid-19, as he is of frail  health and has various comorbidities.  “….there is no positive treatment for Covid-19 and the infection continues to spread viciously and neither there is any vaccine nor is there any medicine to arrest the said disease,” stated the petition, as quoted by LiveLaw. According to the plea, a letter dated September 9 that the family received from co-accused Vernon Gonsalves also stated that Rao’s health was far from normal.

Gonsalves wrote that Rao now lacks bowel and urine control, and has a catheter urine bag attached, he also has to use diapers and is being given swab baths by the co-accused “as he is basically bed-ridden”. The said letter added that when Rao was sent to judicial custody in November 2018, he weighed around 68 kgs and now  weighs 50 kgs only. 

“Thus, there is no purpose in detaining him in prison any further,” the plea states. According to LiveLaw, the petition added that Varavarao Rao is now 81 years old and the question that would arise is whether the jail would have necessary facilities to take care of him. “The treatment meted out to Dr. Varavara impairs the Right to Health recognized under Article 12 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which is read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The rights enshrined under ICCPR and ICESCR have to be read with Article 21 and other rights under Chapter III of the Constitution of India”, stated the plea.

LiveLaw reports that under the mandate prescribed under Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the appeal should be disposed of within three months from the date of its admission. The appeal added that since the “chance of commencement of trial in the immediate future is bleak and charges are yet to be framed and there is no bar to grant bail on health grounds under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act or the National Investigation Act, his release can basis temporary bail can be granted.”

“The Respondents are solely responsible for the deterioration of the Petitioner’s husband’s health by denying timely and proper medical treatment to ensure that there is no deterioration in his condition. The discharge of the Petitioner’s husband from J.J. Hospital on 01.06.2020  is itself was wrongful denying him rightful treatment which the Respondents are bound in law to provide,” the report quoted the petitioners. Rao’s wife has also sought that he be allowed to travel to Hyderabad to be with his family and loved ones.

Dr Rao, has been accused under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 39, 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sections: 121, 121-A, 124- A, 153-A, 505 (1) (b), 117, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Related:

Sudha Bharadwaj’s heart condition result of incarceration, family & friends urge early 
NHRC demands report on Varavara Rao’s health, jail condition
Save his life: Poets and writers appeal to President of India to help Varavara Rao
Varavara Rao tests Covid-19 positive!
Varavara Rao is in hospital today, but the risk to his life is not over: Family
Don’t Kill Varavara Rao in Jail!

The post Varavara Rao’s health deteriorates, wife moves SC for release on medical grounds appeared first on SabrangIndia.