Bombay HC rejects Hany Babu’s bail plea: ‘Prime facie conspired and abetted terrorist act’ – The Indian Express

“Having considered the totality of the material on record indicating accusations against the appellant, we find that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations of the NIA against the appellant having conspired, attempted, advocated and abetted the commission of a terrorist act/s and the act/s of preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, are prima facie true,” the court observed.

It held, “In view of the seriousness of the conspiracy, the threat that it poses and the role of the appellant in it, the arguments of the appellant based on educational qualifications and his conduct, cannot be considered…We do not find any error or perversity committed by the Special Judge. The appeal is dismissed,” the division bench of Justices N M Jamdar and N R Borkar held.

Babu was arrested by the NIA in 2020 for being “actively involved” with banned CPI (Maoist) and booked under charges, including criminal conspiracy and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

In his appeal in the High Court, filed through advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, Babu said there was no evidence against him to suggest that he had intended to support or supported activities causing disaffection against India and there was no material to charge him under the UAPA for terrorist activities.

Claiming that Babu was involved in a conspiracy to set up a ‘Janata Sarkar’ (people’s government) by overthrowing the elected government through armed struggle, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had opposed the bail plea.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh along with advocates Sandesh Patil and Chintan Shah, appearing for the NIA, submitted that Babu wanted to promote and expand Naxalism and he was part of the conspiracy in which the ultimate goal was to wage a war against India by overthrowing the elected government.

The central agency submitted that Babu had not only been involved in sourcing information on making explosives, but had also indulged in garnering support from foreign countries for the banned organisation to carry out anti-national activities.

Referring to “facts of the case,” the court 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 referred to various documents seized from Babu and his co-accused and observed that the same showed the “appellant is an active and prominent member of the CPI (Maoist) party and Babu along with other accused, is working for different mass organisations to further the activities of the CPI (Maoist) party.”

One of the documents included communication between co-accused Rona Wilson and one “comrade Prakash (Ritupan Goswami)”, which referred that the “comrades” had proposed to take “concrete step to end the Modi-Raj” by thinking along the lines of “another Rajiv Gandhi-type incident”.

The bench also said the material on record showed “the Elgar Parishad Programme was used by having established underground contact with the banned organisation through its activists working in Delhi, including Babu.”

The bench refused to accept Babu’s contention that there was no terrorist act involved and observed, “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).”

It added that Babu was expert “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)”.

The bench clarified that its observations made in its judgment were only for consideration of bail and the trial be conducted on its own merits.