Latest news with #UnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act
United News of India
3 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC allows Hany Babu to seek Bail in Bhima Koregaon case
New Delhi, Jul 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted liberty to former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu to approach either the trial court or the High Court for bail in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale passed the order while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed by Babu seeking clarification that the withdrawal of his earlier Special Leave Petition (SLP) did not prevent the High Court from hearing his bail plea. The court also said that Babu could seek revival of the earlier SLP filed in the Supreme Court. In September 2022, the Bombay High Court denied bail to Babu, who was arrested in July 2020 by the NIA over alleged Maoist links in the Bhima Koregaon case. Subsequently, in May 2024, he withdrew his SLP in the Supreme Court, stating his intent to approach the High Court for bail, citing a change in circumstances. On May 2 this year, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court's order allowing withdrawal did not expressly reserve liberty for him to approach it again, and asked Babu to seek clarification from the top court. During today's hearing, Advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Babu, submitted that he has spent five years as an undertrial and withdrew his SLP to approach the High Court as several co-accused had been granted bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. She stated that in comparison to these accused, Babu was 'better placed.' The court was informed that the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, and Sudha Bharadwaj, while the Supreme Court granted bail to P Varavara Rao on medical grounds, and to Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira on merits. Opposing the plea, the NIA counsel submitted that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable as a fresh bail petition lay before the NIA court, and the High Court would act as an appellate court under UAPA provisions. He argued, 'This is an interim bail couched as an MA.' Justice Mithal suggested that the petitioner approach the trial court, observing, 'Your primary ground is, some other accused has been granted bail, that can also be considered by the trial court.' Advocate Roy responded that constitutional courts could grant bail despite the restrictions of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, relying on judgments like K.A. Najeeb, which held that courts can grant bail on grounds of delayed trial and violation of Article 21. Justice Mithal acknowledged that constitutional courts can grant bail but questioned, 'Can we direct the High Court to consider a matter which does not lie before it?' He also noted that Babu's current plea was based on parity with co-accused and not specifically on grounds of delayed trial. Concluding the hearing, the bench ordered, 'The miscellaneous application is dismissed, leaving it open to seek remedies either before the trial court or the High Court or seek revival of the SLP.'
The Print
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Print
Elgar case: SC asks ex-DU prof Hany Babu to move HC or trial court for bail
Babu withdrew his bail plea before the top court on May 3 last year in the case as he decided to move the high court. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale dismissed Babu's plea for a clarification on the point that his withdrawing the earlier appeal did not prevent the high court from hearing his bail application. New Delhi, Jul 16 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked former Delhi University's faculty Hany Babu to move either the Bombay High Court or the trial court for bail in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case. His lawyer then said the high court court had granted bail to five co-accused persons in the case. When Babu moved the high court, it said the apex court's order permitting the withdrawal of his plea did not reserve his liberty to move the high court and asked him to seek a clarification from the top court. Babu's counsel on Wednesday submitted he had undergone five years as an undertrial and withdrawn the special leave petition from the top court to move the high court. The NIA's counsel opposed the plea, calling the application not maintainable for a fresh bail application ought to go before the NIA court. He said the high court was a court of appeal and the case involved Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act charges. The bench then said, 'Your primary ground is, some other accused has been granted bail, that can also be considered by the trial court.' The apex court further remarked that it couldn't direct the high court to consider his bail plea and granted Babu the liberty to seek revival of his previous appeal withdrawn last year. The high court on September 19, 2022 rejected his bail plea. The NIA has accused Babu of being a co-conspirator in propagating Maoist activities and ideology on the instructions of leaders of the banned CPI (Maoist) organisation. Babu was arrested in July 2020 in the case and is currently lodged at the Taloja prison in Navi Mumbai. The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave, held in Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon Bhima war memorial located on the city's outskirts. One person was killed and several others were injured in the violence. The case, in which over a dozen activists and academicians had been named accused, was initially probed by the Pune Police and later taken over by the NIA. Babu approached the HC in June this year, challenging an order of the special NIA court here which rejected his bail plea earlier this year. Babu, in his plea, had said the special court had 'erred' in holding that there existed prima facie incriminating material against him. The NIA had opposed the bail plea, arguing Babu actively participated in activities to promote Naxalism and wanted to overthrow the government. PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Elgar case: SC asks ex-DU prof Hany Babu to move HC or trial court for bail
The Supreme Court addressed Hany Babu's bail plea in the Elgar Parishad case. It directed the former Delhi University faculty to approach either the Bombay High Court or the trial court for bail. Babu had previously withdrawn his plea to move the High Court. The NIA opposes Babu's bail, citing UAPA charges. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked former Delhi University 's faculty Hany Babu to move either the Bombay High Court or the trial court for bail in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale dismissed Babu's plea for a clarification on the point that his withdrawing the earlier appeal did not prevent the high court from hearing his bail withdrew his bail plea before the top court on May 3 last year in the case as he decided to move the high lawyer then said the high court court had granted bail to five co-accused persons in the Babu moved the high court, it said the apex court's order permitting the withdrawal of his plea did not reserve his liberty to move the high court and asked him to seek a clarification from the top counsel on Wednesday submitted he had undergone five years as an undertrial and withdrawn the special leave petition from the top court to move the high NIA's counsel opposed the plea, calling the application not maintainable for a fresh bail application ought to go before the NIA said the high court was a court of appeal and the case involved Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act bench then said, "Your primary ground is, some other accused has been granted bail, that can also be considered by the trial court."The apex court further remarked that it couldn't direct the high court to consider his bail plea and granted Babu the liberty to seek revival of his previous appeal withdrawn last high court on September 19, 2022 rejected his bail NIA has accused Babu of being a co-conspirator in propagating Maoist activities and ideology on the instructions of leaders of the banned CPI (Maoist) was arrested in July 2020 in the case and is currently lodged at the Taloja prison in Navi case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave, held in Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon Bhima war memorial located on the city's person was killed and several others were injured in the case, in which over a dozen activists and academicians had been named accused, was initially probed by the Pune Police and later taken over by the NIA. Babu approached the HC in June this year, challenging an order of the special NIA court here which rejected his bail plea earlier this in his plea, had said the special court had "erred" in holding that there existed prima facie incriminating material against NIA had opposed the bail plea, arguing Babu actively participated in activities to promote Naxalism and wanted to overthrow the government.
India.com
5 hours ago
- India.com
J-K: Properties Worth Crore Belonging To Pakistan-Based Terrorist Handler Seized In Budgam
The Jammu and Kashmir Police has seized three immovable properties worth crores of rupees belonging to Pakistan-based terrorist handlers in Budgam district. The properties were attached in the areas of Khag, Chewa Beerwah, and Harwani Khansahab in Budgam district. This action was executed under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to disrupt terror networks by targeting assets linked to terrorist activities. Budgam police in a handout said, 'In a major crackdown on terror operatives and their support structures, Budgam Police have attached three properties belonging to Pakistan-based terrorist handlers located in Khag, Chewa Beerwah, and Harwani Khansahib in presence of concerned Executive Magistrates. The action was carried out in connection with case FIR No. 58/2024 U/S 7/25 Indian Arms Act, 18, 20, 23 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of Police Station Khag, and under proceedings-initiated U/S 25 of UAPA for attachment of properties used in terrorist activities. The properties attached belong to the following accused persons presently operating from across the border: 1. Manzoor Ahmad Chopan @ Rayees S/O Gh. Mohi-ud-din Chopan, R/O Harwani Khansahib (Double-storied residential house with premises at village Harwani Khansahib, Budgam under Khasra No. 763). 2. Mohammad Yousuf Malik @ Molvi S/O Ab. Rahim Malik, R/O Chewa Budgam (Double-storied residential house along with 05 Kanals, 13 Marlas of land at village Chewa Budgam under Khasra No. 151). Ahmad Wani @ Umer S/O Gh. Ahmad Wani, R/O Nagbal Khag (Land measuring 19.5 Marlas situated at Khag under Khasra Nos. 1093 and 1094). Police added, 'These terrorist handlers, operating from Pakistan, have been actively orchestrating and facilitating terrorist activities in the region for several years. The attachment of their properties is a part of the ongoing efforts to dismantle the logistical, financial, and operational networks of terror outfits and their cross-border sponsors. This operation aligns with ongoing efforts by Jammu and Kashmir Police to dismantle terror support structures, which include seizing assets acquired through proceeds of terrorism or used to harbor terrorists. These efforts reflect a zero-tolerance policy toward terrorism and its support networks.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
SC defers hearing on 'Udaipur Files', tells makers to await govt decision
The Supreme Court on Wednesday postponed the hearing on the controversial film 'Udaipur Files – Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' to July 21 and asked the filmmakers to await the decision of the panel appointed by the Centre to assess objections against the movie, news agency PTI reported. The government panel is scheduled to meet at 2:30 pm on Wednesday. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that if the film is released and later found to be problematic, no compensation would be available to the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case in terms of restoring their reputation. In contrast, the filmmakers, if the release is delayed or blocked, can be compensated monetarily. Why did Delhi High Court stay film's release? The film's release, originally scheduled for July 11, was stayed by the Delhi High Court on July 10. The court directed the petitioners, who had filed pleas seeking a permanent ban on the movie, to approach the Centre within two days, stating that the film had the potential to "promote disharmony" in society. The high court bench noted that the petitioners had not first approached the Union government, as required, and asked the govt panel to grant the accused in the murder case an opportunity to be heard. Kanhaiya Lal's murder and controversy around the film 'Udaipur Files' is based on the killing of tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, Rajasthan, in June 2022. Lal was allegedly murdered by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, who later released a video claiming responsibility. In the video, they said the attack was in retaliation for an alleged social media post by Lal supporting former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who had made controversial remarks about Prophet Muhammad. The incident triggered nationwide outrage, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe. The accused were booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Their trial is ongoing in a special NIA court in Jaipur. Petitioners flag trailer, allege risk of communal tension The legal challenge against the film was led by petitioners including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president and Darul Uloom Deoband principal Maulana Arshad Madani. Their petition cited the film's trailer, released on June 26, which they claim contains provocative dialogues and instances that led to communal disharmony in 2022. They argue that releasing the film could rekindle those tensions and disrupt public order. The petitioners have demanded that the release of 'Udaipur Files' be stayed to prevent the judicial process from being compromised and to avoid societal prejudice. They have also objected to the trailer and the film's promotion campaign. (With agency inputs)
