In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Gautam Navlakha, a senior journalist and activist, in the Bhima Koregaon – Elgar Parishad riots case. The court, comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Shivkumar Dige, found no substantial evidence to suggest Navlakha’s involvement in a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The detailed order, which was uploaded following the bail grant, sheds light on the court’s reasoning and the arguments presented by both sides.
Navlakha, arrested on April 14, 2020, faced allegations of inciting violence in Bhima Koregaon village in Pune district on January 1, 2018. He has been in custody for over three years and eight months. Due to his deteriorating health, the Supreme Court had placed him under house arrest in September 2022.
The court’s observation was clear:
“The actual involvement of the appellant in any terrorist act cannot be even inferred from any of the communications and/or statements of the witnesses,”
underscoring the lack of evidence linking Navlakha directly to any terrorist activities. This statement was pivotal in the court’s decision to grant bail.
Representing Navlakha, Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry argued that his client, a recognized scholar on Maoism, engaged with Maoist leaders and camps purely for academic purposes. Chaudhry emphasized that similar to his co-accused who were granted bail by the Supreme Court, no terrorist act could be attributed to Navlakha.
On the other hand, the NIA, represented by ASG Devang Vyas, opposed the bail, suggesting a larger conspiracy to overthrow the government. Vyas argued that Navlakha’s public opposition to Maoist ideology was merely a guise. He highlighted the recovery of the CPI(Maoist) constitution during searches and electronic evidence in the form of letters from co-accused, suggesting a deeper involvement.
The court, after examining the evidence, noted that at most, Navlakha could be considered a member of CPI(Maoist). However, it stated,
“Even though in the said documents, the authors of it have expressed their intention to cause fatality to the politically influential persons or to cause tremendous disturbance in the Society at large, the Appellant only being a member of the party cannot be prima facie held to be a co-conspirator to it. From the material on record, it appears to us that, no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the Appellant.”
Furthermore, the court dismissed the NIA’s claim of Navlakha’s connections with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), based on a letter he wrote to a US judge seeking clemency for Ghulam Nabi Fai. The bench clarified that mere possession of CPI (Maoist) literature does not constitute a terrorist act under UAPA.
The bench also took into account the prolonged duration of Navlakha’s incarceration and the expected delay in the trial. It stated,
“Navlakha has already undergone over 3 years 8 months of incarceration. This amounts to a denial of his constitutional right to speedy trial.”
Consequently, the court imposed several bail conditions, including a personal release bond of Rs 1 lakh and a surety of the same amount, restrictions on leaving Mumbai without permission, and a directive to not influence prosecution witnesses.
However, the High Court stayed its order for three weeks, allowing the NIA time to appeal to the Supreme Court. This decision is in line with the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, where mere possession of literature, even if it propagates violence, does not automatically imply an offense under UAPA.
Navlakha’s arrest was part of the broader investigation into the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune in December 2017, which allegedly led to violence near the Bhima Koregaon war memorial the following day. This ruling is a significant development in the ongoing Bhima Koregaon case, highlighting the complexities of interpreting UAPA and the importance of concrete evidence in establishing involvement in terrorist activities.
Also read-Delhi HC Orders Rahul Gandhi To Delete Tweet On Minor Rape Victim (lawchakra.in)
