Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of Justice N.R Borkar and Justice Nitin Jamdar of the Bombay High Court, on Monday, rejected the bail of Hany Babu, in the alleged Bhima Koregoan Case.

The division bench while rejecting the bail application by Hany Babu, against the order of a Special Judge stated, that the appellant was assigned to do all future tasks of the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF). The court further noted appellant’s deep involvement in the activities of the RDF and the CPI (Maoist), and that his role cannot be seen only as an academician trying to help a colleague for release from custody.

In one of the communications of the appellant and the co-accused, appellant had mentioned that he has gained expertise in the activities of the terrorist organisation, and the correspondence shows that the appellant is a trustworthy member of the terrorist organisation, who can be entrusted with important tasks. The court went on to note that “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”

The court further took note of the investigation and stated that the communication between the appellant with the co-accused and wanted accused showed that the appellant was in continuous contact with them. The communication between them was,

“To comrades proposing to take concrete steps to end the ‘Modi -Raj’. It is stated that ‘we’ are thinking along the lines of another ‘Rajiv Gandhi-type incident’, and targeting ‘his’ road shows could be an effective strategy”.

Further, the court rejected the bail, stating that the appellant was an expert in setting up appointments and developing a code structure that was vital for secret communication.

The court rejected the arguments made by the appellant and judgments cited by the appellant stating that the facts of the case cited and the punishment was different.

While dismissing the appeal the division bench noted that “We again clarify that our observations made in this judgment are in the context of consideration of bail, and the trial be conducted on its own merits.”

Background: Earlier, a bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and N.R Borkar of Bombay High Court, reserved its judgment on bail appeal filed by Hany Babu in the Bhima Koregoan Case.

Counsel representing Babu argued before the court that none of the acts were committed by the accused and the offences which are charged against him are specific offences. In support of the same, the counsel cited the Supreme Court's judgement and argued that in the case of Varavara Rao’s bail plea only circumstantial evidence was found against the accused.

Further, the counsel argued that the accused has been in custody from the past two years. He had co-operated with the authorities during search and seizure and that the accused did not show any signs of absconding. Thus, it was stated that there was no threat of tampering of evidence by the accused and therefore he should be granted bail.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appearing for the NIA stated that the definition of the Act is very broad, thus the agencies cannot wait for a crime to be committed in order to take action.

The counsel cited section 15 of the UAPA which states that:

“Whoever does any  act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country”.

The counsel argued that the above definition which states that whoever does an act with an intent to threaten or likely to threaten”, is defined and broad enough for authorities to take action against such persons.

Previously, Singh had told the court that Babu that the prosecution has seized material from his laptop to show he was in constant contact with other accused in the case.

Case Title: Hany Babu versus NIA & Ors