The Bombay high court on Monday rejected the bail plea of Jyoti Jagtap, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Bhima Koregaon case.
A division bench of justice A S Gadkari and justice Milind Jadhav said the material produced by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) clearly showed that the Elgar Parishad event (December 31, 2017) was used to establish an underground contact with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) through its activists which include Jagtap.
“From the seriousness of the conspiracy and the threat that it poses, we are of the considered view that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. We do not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned special judge rejecting her bail application,” the bench said.
Jagtap moved the high court after the special NIA court had in February dismissed her bail plea.
Her counsel, Mihir Desai and Kritika Agarwal, claimed before the HC that she was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case as the Central agency had failed to bring forth any substantial evidence to point out her role in the Elgar Parishad event.
The advocates further said there were discrepancies in the findings of the Pune police and the NIA. The bench was told that while the police had said Sudhir Dhawale, another accused, along with Kabir Kala Manch (KKM) members had organised the event, the NIA had contended that KKM members like Ramesh Gaichor, Sagar Gorkhe, and Jagtap were the organisers.
They argued that the NIA had nothing on record to prove that Jagtap was a member of KKM and even if she was it was not an offence. As the case was at the stage of framing of charges and trial would take a long time to complete, she should be granted bail, the petitioner said.
However, the NIA opposed the appeal and said Jagtap had met wanted accused Milind Teltumbde in Korchi forest where she also underwent training in handling weapons and explosives. Advocate Sandesh Patil, representing the agency, said Jagtap had attended meetings of Elgar Parishad organisers who were allegedly trying to rake up the sentiments of Dalits and spread hatred against the government.
Patil referred to the letters seized from other accused where congratulatory messages were exchanged on the success of the event and instructions were issued to exploit the death of the youth in the Bhima Koregaon violence to prove that the entire incident was premeditated and she was an active member of KKM, which was furthering the activities of CPI (M) in urban areas based on Teltumbde’s instructions.
After hearing the submissions, the bench said, “Thus, it is seen from the totality of the entire material presented before us that the appellant’s role cannot be segregated or separated and it will have to be seen in the light of the charge of conspiracy of the entire case put forth by the NIA. The documents referred to herein above clearly highlight the active role of the appellant in so far as organising the Elgar Parishad event but more importantly it is the association of the appellant with the prominent members of the CPI(M), a designated terrorist organisation, which cannot be lost sight of. It is seen that the appellant was in active touch with all other co-accused working for different mask organisations to further the objectives of the CPI(M).”
The court also said, “It is also seen that the CPI(M) has chalked out a strategy for furtherance of its objectives to overthrow the democratically elected government of our country and the appellant and other co-accused are prima facie actively strategising the same. The entire material produced before us by the NIA clearly shows that the Elgar Parishad event was used and organised to establish an underground contact with the CPI(M) through its activists which include the appellant.”
While rejecting Jagtap’s appeal, the HC said, “In view of having considered the totality of the entire material on record as alluded to herein above, we are of the considered opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the allegations/accusations of the NIA against the appellant having conspired, attempted, advocated and abated the commission of a terrorist act are prima facie true. Considering the material on record and in view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal stands dismissed.”