Legal News and Insight around the Globe!

SC to hear Bail Petition Filed by Varavara Rao In Bhima Koregaon Case

Shashwati Chowdhury

Published on: July 1, 2022 at 17:26 IST

P V Varavara Rao, a Telugu poet and Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad accused, petitioned the Supreme Court on Thursday, challenging the Bombay High Court’s order to denying him permanent medical bail. The Supreme Court decided to hear his case on July 11th.

The decision was made by a Bench of Justice Surys Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala after Senior Advocate Anand Grover mentioned the issue. The Bombay High Court had refused him permission to live in his Telangana home through the impugned order from April 13, but it had also given directions to speed up the trial and extended his temporary bail by three months so that he could undergo cataract operation.

According to the petition, it is well-established law and the Supreme Court has ruled that bail can be granted in UAPA cases notwithstanding the law’s prohibition on it when basic rights are violated.

The petition mentioned, Father Stan Swamy, an 83-year-old tribal rights activist an another accused in the case, passed away in custody in July 2021.

According to the petitioner, his health deteriorated following the granting of bail in February 2021, and he had to have surgery for an umbilical hernia. He also needs to have cataract operation for both of his eyes, but he has not undertaken because the cost in Mumbai is too high.

Rao and 14 other activists have been accused by the NIA with supporting the agenda of the banned CPI(Maoist) and conspiring the overthrow the government. They are booked under violating the strict Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) based mostly on letters/mails primarily retrieved from their electronic devices.

According to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Elgar Parishad Cultural Event was held in Pune on December  31, 2017 The agency said that the inflammatory speeches at the gathering fueled the caste violence in Bhima Koregaon, the following day..

The defendants have claimed that the electronic evidence is planted because the majority of them weren’t named in the FIR or hadn’t participated in the event.