Mumbai: Nearly two weeks after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) sought cancellation of her bail on grounds of wilful violation of court-imposed conditions, activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj, an accused in the 2008 Elgar Parishad case, has approached the special court seeking directions to the prosecution to furnish all statements of witnesses recorded during an in-house inquiry and all relevant documents cited by the agency.
Court Directs Prosecution to Submit Reply
The court has directed the prosecution to submit its reply and posted the matter for June 10. This development comes after the NIA moved the special court on May 15 seeking cancellation of bail granted to Bharadwaj (64) and poet Varavara Rao (85).
Allegations of Wilful Violation
The NIA alleged that Bharadwaj and Rao, along with several co-accused, wilfully violated court-imposed restrictions by being in contact with each other. They reportedly participated in a gathering at a south Mumbai venue on January 19. The agency cited digital evidence and internal reports from the venue to support its claims.
Evidence Presented by NIA
The NIA submitted an inquiry committee report from the venue, along with CCTV footage and call data records (CDR) to establish the presence of Bharadwaj, Rao, and other accused individuals, including Arun Ferreira, Anand Teltumbde, Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Hany Babu, Vernon Gonsalves, and Gautam Navlakha. The agency alleged that the CDR showed their phones were at the same venue during the time of the gathering.
Background of the Case
The Elgar Parishad case pertains to alleged inflammatory speeches made at a conclave in Pune in 2018, which the police claim were linked to the Maoist movement. Several activists and academics have been arrested in connection with the case, and many have been granted bail after prolonged detention.
Bharadwaj, a human rights lawyer, was arrested in August 2018 and spent over three years in prison before being granted bail in 2022. The NIA’s recent move to cancel her bail has been challenged by her legal team, which argues that the agency’s allegations are baseless and that she has complied with all bail conditions.
The next hearing on June 10 will be crucial in determining the course of the legal battle. The court’s decision on whether to direct the NIA to share the in-house inquiry documents could have significant implications for the case.
