Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 10 August, 2022 at 19:31 IST
Varavara Rao, the defendant in the Elgar Parishad case, should not be allowed bail, according to the National Investigative Agency (NIA), since “Rao is involved in continuing unlawful operations against the Government of India.” NIA v. P Varavara Rao
Rao, who has been detained for more than two years, had applied to the top court for permanent medical bail, but the NIA has now objected, claiming that his acts allegedly furthered the goals of the Communist Party of India, a banned organisation (Maoist).
The NIA’s affidavit stated that Rao “was not just linked or supported CPI(Maoist), but he was continuously carrying out the agenda of the banned organisation and was being praised by the members of CPIM.”
The NIA added that Rao’s activities were against the wishes of the state and the general people.
There shall be no relief when the offence is against the state and public interest, the NIA argued in its reply affidavit, “Considering the act committed by the accused which is against the interest of the country and the principles of the Indian Constitution.”
The NIA also made reference to a document from the outlawed group titled “Strategy and tactics of Indian revolution,” which was discovered during the investigation.
“Instead of fighting a conventional war, CPIM’s main goal was to mobilise the populace militarily and politically in order to fight a people’s war. In the document, the term ‘subverting democratic institutions’ is used”, according to the rebuttal affidavit submitted by attorney Nupur Kumar.
After the Bombay High Court declined to give him permanent medical bail, Rao filed a petition with the Supreme Court.
Along with dismissing Rao’s bail request, the High Court panel of SB Shukre and GA Sanap also denied his request to live in Telangana while he was on trial.
The Court had, however, prolonged an earlier decision allowing him interim freedom on medical grounds for three more months.
Rao has already spent two years in jail while awaiting trial, according to the argument made before the Supreme Court, and “further incarceration would ring the death knell for him as advanced age and failing health are a lethal combination.”
According to the argument, the High Court erred by ruling that indefinite bail could not be granted in the current instance because it had only been granted for six months earlier.
The petitioner has a number of major health issues, including an umbilical hernia, neurological and Parkinson’s symptoms, brain clots, and cataracts in both of his eyes, but he has not undergone surgery for any of them because of the high expense of care in Mumbai, according to the petition.
Furthermore, it was argued that even if the High Court requested that the trial go quickly, there are over 300 witnesses who must be questioned, which would take at least ten years.