[Bhima Koregaon] Bombay High Court refuses bail to DU professor Hany Babu

The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected the regular bail application filed by Delhi University professor Hany Babu, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon riots case of 2018..A bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and NR Borkar rendered the verdict today in an appeal filed by Babu challenging an order of the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court rejecting his bail application."The offences alleged against the Appellant (Babu) for which NIA has placed the material in the record are serious. The documents on record show that Babu was an expert in setting up appointments and developing code structure which was vital for secret communication; involvement in crucial aspects such as mass mobilisation, party building and analysis of the cities in the context of a larger objective of the CPI (Maoist) a terrorist organisation" the Bench observed in its order..Babu was arrested in July 2020 on charges of being a member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and being involved in conspiracy to attack Prime Minister Narendra Modi/ In his plea filed through advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Babu had claimed that the letters cited by NIA, purportedly mentioning conspiracy to kill Prime Minister Narendra Modi, did not incriminate him.NIA’s claim was that the letter was found on Babu’s computer; Babu’s contention was that the letter was neither written by him nor addressed to him, nor did it mention of his role in the conspiracy.He submitted in his plea that the special judge had erred in relying upon the letter as a prima facie evidence to incriminate him; further that the charges against him were of making incriminating speeches which were also not substantiated by the central agency.The plea also added that the trial in the case was yet to commence and would take time to conclude as NIA planned to examine over 200 witnesses for evidence running into more than 30,000 pages.Chaudhry pointed out that nothing about Babu's conduct till date showed that he would abscond if released on bail.Chaudhary also contended that the NIA had failed to point out any ‘act’ committed or supported by Babu which could constitute an offence under provisions of the UAPA.“What is the terrorist act and where is the outcome? A war has to happen, people have to die, how can I be prosecuted for a terrorist act when no one has died?” he argued..For the NIA, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh argued that the allegations in the chargesheet indicated that Babu was directly involved in the serious offences alleged against him.“The nature of the allegations and the case which is made out falls under category of terrorist attack. The activities are to overthrow the government, wage war against the government, armed revolution,” he contended.Singh claimed that Babu was involved in the conspiracy to set up ‘janta sarkaar’ (people’s government) by overthrowing the existing government through armed struggle.As far as documents and records were concerned, the ASG had contended that at this stage it was not necessary for the Court to get into those details. In any case, the additional burden of proof is on the applicant, he suggested.It was also the ASG's argument that a terrorist act did not mean that someone is required to die.“Should an incident take place, or must people die because of some activities for it to be termed as terrorism?”He pointed out provisions of UAPA as per which 'threaten' or ‘likely to threaten’ was also punishable offence when it threatened the sovereignty of the country.."Having considered the rival contentions and the material placed before us by the NIA, we find that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellant are prima facie true", the Bench concluded in the 59 page order..[Read order]