Mumbai Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To 2 TISS Accused Over 'Release Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam' Slogans

A Mumbai Sessions Court on August 7 denied anticipatory bail to two TISS students accused of raising slogans seeking the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam during a gathering held to pay homage to former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba. The Court, however, granted relief to seven other accused.

Additional Sessions Judge V.B. Bohra of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, passed four separate orders in the case arising from 2025 Case registered at Trombay Police Station, later taken over by the CID.

All nine accused faced the same set of offences in the FIR, but the Court assessed the allegations and investigation material against each accused separately.

Denying relief to Accused Abhirup Paul and Kamakhya Prasad Das, the Court observed in its order: "Without permission of the administration of college or institute, the accused persons gathered in the premises, paid homage to G. N. Saibaba and while doing so, in spite of having knowledge that, the Law of Land has denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, raised slogans to release them. It was not any public gathering or agitation raising any dissent in a public place. On the cost of repetition objectionable material was found in the laptop and mobile of the applicant accused, suggesting division of Country".

It added that mere downloading of books published by the Maoist Organisation would not amount to an offence, but custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary to ascertain their intention behind downloading books and raising slogans seeking the release of Umar and Sharjeel.

The case concerns an alleged gathering at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) on October 12, 2025, where students allegedly paid homage to Saibaba and raised slogans seeking the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

According to the FIR lodged under Section 189(2), Section 190, Section 192, Section 196, Section 197, Section 223, Section 61(2)(a) BNS (corresponding to 142, 143, 149, 153, 153A, 153B, 188, 120A, 120B of IPC), around 10-12 students gathered near Hostel No.4 without prior permission from the administration.

They allegedly arranged Saibaba's photographs, lit candles, read poems written by him and displayed “Rest in Power (1967-Forever)" instead of "Rest in Peace". The FIR further alleged that slogans including “Umar Khalid ko riha karo” and “Sharjeel Imam ko riha karo” were raised.

The investigation was initially conducted by Trombay Police before being taken over by the CID. Laptops and mobile phones were seized from some accused.

Paying homage to Saibaba not illegal, Court says

The Court noted that Saibaba had been convicted under the UAPA and IPC but was acquitted by the Bombay High Court on March 5, 2024. Although the State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court, Saibaba died on October 12, 2024. he Court held that paying homage to Saibaba could not itself be termed illegal.

However, it found that the alleged conduct went beyond merely paying homage, particularly in relation to the slogans seeking the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam and the additional material allegedly recovered from certain accused.

Why Kamakhya Das was denied bail?

The Court found additional circumstances against Kamakhya Prasad Das. Books published by members of CPI (Maoist) were allegedly found downloaded on devices belonging to her and co-accused Abhirup Paul, while certain information was allegedly deleted.

The Court recorded the prosecution's case that the material suggested the two were inspired by Maoist ideology and that the gathering was part of an attempt to influence other students.

The Court clarified that mere downloading of Maoist literature would not itself constitute an offence. But, in Kamakhya's case, it considered the alleged material alongside the slogans seeking the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam who are facing trial under UAPA, to whom bail was denied by the Supreme Court of India.

Hence, it held that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain her intention.

The Court also noted an allegation that a prosecution witness had been threatened and recorded that Kamakhya allegedly threatened Trombay Police officer Tanaji Rode with removal from service during the pendency of the bail application. An N.C. Report was registered in connection with the allegation.

Holding that custodial interrogation was necessary “for extracting truth”, the Court rejected her anticipatory bail plea.

Why Abhirup Paul was denied bail?

In Abhirup's case, the prosecution alleged that he was a member of the Progressive Students Forum and that material recovered from his devices included books published by CPI (Maoist). His WhatsApp chats allegedly showed that he had undertaken “field work”, while certain information was allegedly deleted.

The Court also noted allegations that a witness had been threatened and that Abhirup had not cooperated with the investigation on material particulars.

The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain his intention behind downloading the books, his alleged field work, his role in the slogans for Umar and Sahrjeel and whether he had any link with a banned organisation. His anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.

Thus, the slogans were not the sole basis for rejecting bail to the two accused; the Court considered them along with the electronic material, alleged conduct and the investigating agency's need for custodial interrogation.

Seven other accused granted anticipatory bail

The Court granted relief to Satyam Yadav, Hardika Bhagat, Uttkarsh Khuntia, Yash Kaundilya, Avantika, Ishpreet Kaur and Nikita Monica Dsouza.

Satyam Yadav was alleged to have participated in the programme and, along with Yash, read a poem written by Saibaba. The Court found no other serious allegation against him, noted his cooperation with the investigation and held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Hardika Bhagat admitted paying homage to Saibaba but denied raising the release slogans. The Court found no other serious allegation against her, noted that she had no criminal antecedents and had cooperated with investigators.

Yash Kaundilya was alleged to have raised the slogans and, along with Satyam, read Saibaba's poem. However, there was no other allegation or incriminating material against him.

Uttkarsh Khuntia, Avantika and Ishpreet Kaur were alleged to have actively participated in the programme along with Kamakhya and Yash, but no other allegations or incriminating material were found against them. Their cooperation with the investigation also weighed in their favour.

Nikita Monica Dsouza was alleged to have been present and actively participated in the programme. The Court found no other allegation or incriminating material against her and granted her anticipatory bail.

The seven accused were granted bail on Rs.25,000 PR bonds with one surety each, subject to conditions including cooperation with the CID, non-interference with witnesses and a restriction on leaving India without permission of the Trial Court.

The Court thus denied anticipatory bail to Kamakhya Das and Abhirup Paul, while granting relief to the remaining seven accused from arrest.