Elgar Parishad case: HC dismisses Hany Babu’s appeal for bail

Mumbai The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed the bail appeal of Elgar Parishad accused Hany Babu

Mumbai

Hany Babu HT Archives

The Bombay high court on Monday dismissed the bail appeal of Elgar Parishad accused Hany Babu. The HC held that the grounds on which the special court had rejected the bail application was prima facie valid. The court upheld the submissions of National Investigation Agency (NIA) that Babu was actively involved in promoting the ideology of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation and was promoting anti-national activities and was also part of a conspiracy to bring down the government.

Babu had claimed in his plea that there was no evidence against him to prove that he was involved in anti-national activities. However, NIA had argued that as the nature of accusations against Babu was serious, he should not be released on bail.

The division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Nitin Borkar which was hearing the appeal filed by Babu against the rejection of his bail by the special NIA court had concluded hearing the appeal on August 29 and reserved its order. On Monday, the court passed its verdict by simply saying “appeal dismissed”.

Babu had approached the HC after the special court had rejected his bail application in February 2022 and in its order observed that prima facie there was evidence of the Delhi University associate professor’s active involvement in the promoting the agenda of the CPI (Maoist) organisation which is banned by the Government of India.

In his appeal, Babu through advocates Yug Choudhary and Payoshi Roy had stated that so far the investigating agency had not been able to get any incriminating material against him and he was wrongly booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

In its detailed judgement, the HC held, “We found no merit in the contention by Babu that his fundamental rights were breached since he was in custody for the last two years and the trial is not likely to commence and there was no bar on court to grant bail irrespective of UAPA.”

The bench also referred to various documents seized from Babu and his co-accused and observed that they showed Babu was an active and prominent member of the CPI (Maoist) party and Babu along with other accused were working for different mass organisations to further the activities of the CPI (Maoist) party.

The court further held, “The appellant is not just a passive member but an active member, and the material on record clearly shows his involvement in the larger conspiracy. Pursuant to the larger conspiracy to seize power from the State, the members of the police and armed forces have been made targets and killed, and also the conspiracy refers to the elimination of constitutional functionaries. The appellant is not merely a sympathiser with this organisation but is given substantial responsibility, including conducting activities of the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), a frontal organisation of the CPI (Maoist).”

The bench also noted that Babu was influential in developing code structure which was vital for secret communication and the documents showed his involvement in mass mobilisation, party building and analysis of cities for the larger objective of CPI (Maoist).

While concluding the judgement the bench said that its observations were only for consideration of bail and the trial be conducted on its own merits.