Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Bhima Koregaon Accused Mahesh Raut: Court Questions UAPA Charges
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Mahesh Raut, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case. The court’s decision comes after a detailed examination of the charges against Raut, who was accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The bench comprised Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, representing Raut, argued that his client was not a member of the banned CPI(Maoist) outfit as claimed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Desai pointed out that Raut was a recipient of the Prime Minister’s Fellowship and an activist working for adivasis in Gadchiroli.
The NIA, represented by Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas and Advocate Sandesh Patil, countered that Raut was part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against the country. They claimed,
“The whole ideology of Naxalism revolves around the idea that it views a democratically elected government as the enemy and considers those of their own killed as martyrs. They mobilize and mislead the youth.”
The court, however, was not convinced by the NIA’s arguments. Justice Gadkari and Justice Deshmukh observed,
“After taking into consideration the totality of the entire material and evidence on record against Raut, this Court is of the view that at the most it can be said that Raut is a member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and therefore it would attract provisions of Sections 13 and 38 of UAP Act. According to us, there is no material on record to indicate that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellant under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 39 of UAPA are prima facie true.”
The court further noted that there was no evidence to corroborate the claim that Raut had received ₹5 lakh from the Communist Party of India (Maoist) along with co-accused Surendra Gadling and Sudhir Dhawale. It also stated that no covert or overt terrorist act had been attributed to Raut, making the offenses under the UAPA concerning terrorist acts seem prima facie not true.
Case Counsel:
- For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mihir Desai
- For the Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas and Advocate Sandesh Patil
- Bench: Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court
