Maoist polit bureau member Amithab Bagchi granted bail by Telangana HC after 16 years behind bars

Bagchi’s counsel informed the court that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 2010. While he was granted default bail first in October 2010, he could not furnish sureties.

The police filed a chargesheet in the case in 2019, and the sessions judge granted him bail in January 2024. The prosecution filed an application seeking bail cancellation before the petitioner could furnish sureties, and the sessions judge allowed the prosecution’s demand in July 2024, thereby cancelling the bail.

During the hearing, the senior counsel submitted that no new circumstances were brought before the sessions judge and there was no violation of bail conditions as the petitioner still remained in judicial custody.

He argued that the action of sessions judge, by cancelling the bail earlier granted by her, without any new circumstances or violation of conditions, was in violation of section 362 of the CrPC, which provides for a statutory bar against a court altering or reviewing its own final orders.

The Additional Public Prosecutor countered by submitting that the petitioner is a polit bureau member of banned CPI (Maoists) and if released on bail is likely to rejoin the organisation, go underground as a full-time extremist and likely to evade trial. He also contended that the petitioner was a dangerous criminal and may commit further acts of violence and sabotage, likely destroy evidence, and threaten witnesses.

He also informed the court that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by a Ranchi court in a 2009 offence and convicted and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment in a 2011 case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

After recording the submissions, the court stressed the settled legal position that cancellation of bail stood on a different footing from setting aside an illegal bail order.

“Cancellation of bail shall be founded on any violation of bail conditions, or misuse of liberty, or interference with investigation or trial, or likelihood of absconding, or emergence of new adverse circumstances after grant of bail,” the court noted.

Justice Sridevi also noted that once a court grants bail and finally disposes of the bail application, in the absence of statutory provision for review, the court becomes functus officio (having performed his office). The court agreed with the petitioner’s counsel that section 362 of the CrPC bars alteration or review of such final order except for clerical or arithmetical errors.

Justice Sridevi underscored that there are no “supervening circumstances” after the grant of bail, or violation of any bail condition by the petitioner, or any material showing misuse of liberty, more particularly when the petitioner was still in custody for want of sureties.

The court noted that the grounds urged by the prosecution in its application for cancellation of bail were matters which were available or could have been considered at the time of granting bail.

“The prosecution, if aggrieved by the order granting bail, was to approach the superior court, but not to seek cancellation of bail before the same court on the very same set of facts,” the court stated.

While setting aside the July 2024 order of the IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, the court also clarified that the prosecution may approach the superior court against the order granting bail, if aggrieved by it.