Elgar Parishad case: Supreme Court extends stay imposed by Bombay High Court on order granting bail to Gautam Navlakha

Elgar Parishad case: Supreme Court extends stay imposed by Bombay High Court on order granting bail to Gautam Navlakha. File Photo/PTI

The Supreme Court has extended the stay initially imposed by the Bombay High Court regarding the execution of its order granting bail to Gautam Navlakha in the Elgar Parishad case.

Justices M M Sundresh and S V N Bhatti, constituting the bench, have instructed the Supreme Court's Registry to present the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) plea to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud for a decision on associating the petition with cases involving other accused individuals. The Supreme Court explicitly refrained from expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

The Bombay High Court had on December 19 last year granted bail to Navlakha in Elgar Parishad case but stayed its order for three weeks after the NIA sought time to file an appeal in the top court.

Navlakha, who was arrested in August 2018, was in November last year permitted by the Supreme Court to be placed under house arrest. He is currently residing in Navi Mumbai.

The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claim triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.

As many as 16 activists have been arrested in the Elgar Parishad case and five of them are currently out on bail.

The Bombay High Court had emphasized that there is no material on record suggesting that Gautam Navlakha conspired to commit any terrorist act.

Also read: Supreme Court refuses SIT probe against Adani group

The High Court, after examining the available material, concluded that there is no evidence of any covert or overt terrorist act attributed to Navlakha. The judgment stated, "From the material on record, it appears to us that no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the appellant (Navlakha)."

The High Court's judgment emphasized that, based on the material presented by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against Navlakha are prima facie true. The court expressed the opinion that Navlakha's intention, at most, was to commit the alleged crime and that this intention had not transformed into preparation or an attempt to commit a terrorist act.

The court noted that the witness statements suggested Navlakha's association with the Communist Party of India (Maoist), which, if proven, would attract provisions of participating in an unlawful activity and membership of a terrorist organization under sections 13 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, respectively. These sections provide for a maximum punishment not exceeding ten years. (With inputs from agencies)