Elgaar parishad case: No interim protection from arrest for Navlakha, Bombay HC will hear plea today

Arguing for Navlakha, lawyer Yug Chaudhry told the HC on Thursday that his situation was identical to that of professor and activist Anand Teltumbde, who has also been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and is accused of being part of the Elgaar Parishad held in Pune on December 31, 2017.

Chaudhry said that Teltumbde was granted protection from arrest by the HC in February and his anticipatory bail application is listed for December 2.

“There is no distinguishing feature in his case and mine,” Chaudhry told the court.

Justice Prakash Naik suggested that in that case, the cases of both Teltumbde and Navlakha can be heard together. He asked the counsel for Teltumbde to be informed if the hearing in his case had to be pre-poned to Friday.

Additional public prosecutor Aruna Kamat Pai, however, told the court that although the cases arise from the same offence, the roles of Teltumbde and Navlakha were not the same. She also argued that Navlakha was protected from arrest by the Supreme Court until November 12. Pai told the court Navlakha should have approached the court before November 12 and, if he was seeking further protection from arrest, he should approach the Supreme Court and not the High Court.

The court asked Pai if she wanted to make a statement about not arresting Navlakha until his anticipatory bail application is heard on Friday. Pai, however, said, “I will not make any concession”.

Navlakha moved the HC after a special court in Pune rejected his anticipatory bail application on Tuesday. In its order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in the Elgaar Parishad case, the special court took note of various documents submitted by the prosecution, including those titled “Strategy and Tactics (S & T) of the Indian Revolution” and “Work in urban areas”, both allegedly recovered from the pen drive of co-accused P Varavara Rao.

The Pune court observed, “It appears from the documents that banned organisation was operating in different ways to achieve its objectives. Different members were entrusted with different activities, which was part of larger conspiracy.” The court noted arguments by the defence lawyer, who had filed copies of different books written by Navlakha and certain material of CPI-Maoist (including S & T of the Indian Revolution), which is available on the internet.