Read Time: 06 minutes

The Special NIA Court has rejected bail plea's of Bhima Koregaon violence accused Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap, Hany Babu.

The Court has said that a letter dated 18 April 2017 allegedly issued by a co-accused, Rona Wilson to Prakash states that the banned organisation CPI(Maoist) & its affiliates and sympathisers were "hell-bent" on ending "Modi-Raj", i.e. the Modi led Government by going for another incident like the death of Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who was assassinated in 1991 by LTTE terrorists. 

"The contents of the aforesaid letter prima facie speaks that the CPI (M) was bent upon to end the Modi­ Raj i.e. the Modi led Government. Not only this, they were also thinking to go for another incident like the death of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, by targeting the road shows of Mr. Modi....(...)... If these allegations are taken into consideration in proper perspective in that case, there will be no hesitation to prima facie conclude that the applicants have an done an act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India and with intent to strike terror in section of the people in India by other means to likely cause death of or injuries or any person or persons" 
- Court

The Court found that the defence had not made a case for grant of bail and that there is "scope to prima facie conclude that the applicant (Hany Babu) was having knowledge in respect of conspiracy so hatched. 

Court rejected the contention of the defence counsel, Mr. Gaikwad who appeared for Hany Babu, also a Delhi University professor who relied on a judgment propounding provisions of the NDPS Act, of the Supreme Court, in which the Court said that it needed to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is "not guilty" and that he is unlikely to commit another offence. Court said that unlike the NDPS, "there is no such pre-condition in the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act". However, the court also added that the statutory restrictions like Sections 43-D (5) of the Act per se does not oust the ability of the Constitutional Courts to grant bail.

Court took note of sufficient material presented by the Special Public prosecutor to show that the accused were involved in the activities of banned organisation - CPI (Maoist) and they were not merely passive but active members of the banned organisation.

"There is sufficient material against them to show their involvement in the larger conspiracy. He (SPP) has referred to certain letters seized from the computers and electronic devices of the applicant and the co­ accused during search to show how they were involved in the functioning of the banned organisation and the severity of the conspiracy....(..).. "
- Court

Court thus found that is the material presented is taken into consideration there is no hesitation to prima facie conclude that the applicant was actively involved in the activities of the banned organisation and wanted to further the ideology of the CPI(M) and that they had abetted the act of waging war against the GOI.