Stan Swamy part of organisation that wanted to create unrest: NIA court

Father Swamy was arrested on October 8 last year for allegedly being part of a conspiracy in connection with Bhima Koregaon case. He had moved a bail plea in November claiming he had been falsely implicated

The special NIA court on Monday rejected Father Stan Swamy’s bail plea, observing that he was a member of an organisation that “hatched a serious conspiracy to create unrest in the entire country and to overpower the government.”

Human rights activist Father Stan Swamy. (HT Archive)

Father Swamy was arrested on October 8 last year for allegedly being part of a conspiracy in connection with Bhima Koregaon case. He had moved a bail plea in November claiming he had been falsely implicated due to the nature of his writings about the caste and land struggles of the people in India and research on undertrial adivasis.

While rejecting the bail plea, the special judge DE Kothalikar said, “The material placed on record thus prima facie denotes that the applicant was not only the member of banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) but he was carrying out activities further in the objective of the organisation which is nothing but to overthrow the democracy of the nation.

Therefore, I do not find merit in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant that only because of membership of banned organisation the applicant cannot be detained in jail, is not acceptable.”

The prosecution, while objecting to the bail, cited around 140 emails and letters exchanged between Father Swamy and other accused persons such as Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha. The NIA also claimed that Father Swamy was a “staunch supporter of the activities of the organisation, which is a frontal organisation of CPI (Maoist).”

Father Swamy denied his role in the conspiracy and also cited his age and ailments as grounds for bail.

The court discarded the plea of his old age observing, “The collective interest of the community would outweigh the right of personal liberty of the applicant and as such the old age and/or alleged sickness of the applicant would not go in his favour, so that the discretion to release the applicant can be exercised in his favour.”

The court refused to refer to a report from a Massachusetts-based digital forensics firm, Arsenal Consulting, which claimed that just a few hours before arrest of one of the accused Rona Wilson, his computer was tampered with. The court said “such extraneous material is not required to be considered while deciding the application for bail.”