Read Time: 05 minutes
Hany babu is accused of waging war and attempting to wage war against the Government of India, tampering and disappearing the evidence, criminal conspiracy, and promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, and language under the Indian Penal Code. Further, he is also accused of committing unlawful activities, terrorist acts, conspiring and organizing terrorist camps, and recruiting members to commit a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act
The bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and N.R Borkar of Bombay High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on bail appeal filed by Hany Babu in the Bhima Koregoan Case.
The Special NIA court on February 15 rejected the bail plea of Babu and four others. Special NIA Judge DE Kothalikar rejected the bail applications of Hany Babu and Kabir Kala Manch members Sagar Gorkhe, Jyoti Jagtap and Ramesh Gaichor, holding that there is prima facie evidence to show he “was actively involved in the activities of the banned organisation CPI(Maoist) and furthering its ideology".
Further to this, the chargesheet against the accused revealed “systematic network of Maoists operating for the supply of arms and ammunitions, having proper nexus with the Maoist cadre and other banned organisations within and outside India”
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.
Earlier, 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.
After hearing both the parties the Bombay High Court finally reserved the judgment.
Case Title: Hany Babu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
