HC paves way for 73-yr-old alleged Maoist’s release on bail

The Bombay High Court has allowed the release of Satyanarayana Rani, who is accused of conspiring in a 2019 landmine blast in Gadchiroli district. Rani will be released on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and must report to the National Investigation Agency office on the first Friday of every month. The court modified its earlier order requiring sureties due to Rani's inability to meet the conditions. Rani's release is based on finding inadequacies in the prosecution story and concerns for his health and life while awaiting trial.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has paved the way for the release of 73-year-old Satyanarayana Rani, who is accused of conspiring in a 2019 landmine blast in Gadchiroli district that killed 15 security personnel and one civilian.

HT Image

Rani was granted bail by the high court in July 2022, but was unable to furnish sureties to secure his release. The court has now modified its earlier order and allowed him to be released without furnishing sureties on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh. Bail conditions require him to report to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) office on the first Friday of every month, between 10am and 12noon until the trial concludes.

The IED blast for which Rani was imprisoned occurred on May 1, 2019 under the bridge on Purada-Kurkheda road in Gadchiroli. The attack was targeted at a vehicle carrying members of the Quick Response Team (QRT). Maharashtra police arrested Rani on June 11, 2019 from his house in Hyderabad claiming he was part of a conspiracy meeting that sought to avenge the deaths of 40 Maoists killed by Gadchiroli police in the 2018 Kasnasur-Boriya encounter. The case was later transferred to the NIA for further investigation.

In 2022, Rani approached the high court seeking bail. Finding inadequacies in the prosecution story, the court granted him bail on July 15, 2022, on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh, with one or two solvent sureties in the same amount. Unable to meet the bail conditions, he approached the court earlier this month seeking modification of his bail order.

Yug Mohit Chaudhary, who represented Rani, told the bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse that Rani was unable to provide sureties as he had no family members in Mumbai. He submitted that Rani was penurious and did not have any resources to afford any kind of surety or even to give cash bail.

Chaudhary further stated that Rani suffered from serious physical ailments, such as cerebral cavernoma, tremors in both hands, cataracts, and disability in his left limb, which made walking extremely difficult. Considering these circumstances, Rani should be released solely on a personal bond, he submitted.

Rani too assured the court through an affidavit that he would reside at an address verified by the agency.

The NIA, however, opposed the plea saying a special leave petition against Rani’s bail was already pending before the supreme court and that modification of bail would impede the appeal process.

Chaudhary contended that since the NIA had made no efforts to obtain a stay against the bail order, it shouldn’t be of material consideration. The applicant cannot be detained only because a special leave petition is pending; more particularly when there is no stay on the order enlarging him on bail, he submitted.

The court, after hearing both parties, took note of its earlier order granting bail to Rani. It observed that continuing to incarcerate Rani would not only endanger his life and health but also be a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life), particularly when the trial would take a long time to conclude.

The court found it appropriate to relax the requirement for furnishing sureties as long as Rani resides within the jurisdiction of the NIA court in Mumbai and Thane until the conclusion of the trial. He is also expected to share his number and other details with the NIA if he happens to obtain a mobile phone.