Bhima Koregaon Case: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Mahesh Raut – A Critical Analysis of the Legal Issues Involved

Introduction

The Bhima Koregaon case represents one of the most significant legal battles concerning civil liberties and anti-terror legislation in contemporary India. On September 21, 2023, the Bombay High Court granted regular bail to Mahesh Raut, a tribal rights activist who had been incarcerated for over five years without trial under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [1]. This decision marked a watershed moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding the balance between national security imperatives and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The case emerged from the violence that erupted at Koregaon Bhima village near Pune on January 1, 2018, following the Elgar Parishad event held on December 31, 2017, which commemorated the bicentenary of the Battle of Bhima Koregaon. Authorities alleged that inflammatory speeches delivered at this event incited caste-based violence between Dalit and Maratha communities the following day [2].

Mahesh Raut, then a 31-year-old forest rights activist and graduate of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, was arrested on June 6, 2018, along with several other activists, lawyers, and academics [3]. The prosecution charged him under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, alleging links with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and involvement in a larger conspiracy to destabilize the democratically elected government. The bail order by the Bombay High Court, however, found that prima facie evidence against Raut under critical UAPA sections was insufficient, raising fundamental questions about the application of anti-terror laws against social activists and the interpretation of bail provisions in such cases.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Legal Framework and Evolution

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was originally enacted in 1967 to provide the government with powers to deal with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The Act has undergone significant amendments over the decades, most notably in 2004, 2008, 2013, and 2019, progressively expanding its scope and stringency. The 2008 amendment, enacted in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks, introduced provisions relating to terrorist acts and significantly altered the bail landscape by incorporating Section 43D(5), which created stringent restrictions on the grant of bail to accused persons.

Under the UAPA, Section 13 deals with punishment for unlawful activities, defining it as any action that supports or incites the cession or secession of any part of India. This provision carries a maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment. Section 15 defines what constitutes a “terrorist act” as any act committed with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people, through the use of explosives, firearms, or other dangerous substances. Section 16 prescribes punishment for terrorist acts, which can extend to life imprisonment or death in certain circumstances.

Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA address the raising of funds for terrorist acts and punishment for conspiracy or preparation to commit terrorist acts respectively. These provisions have been particularly controversial in their application, as they allow for prosecution based on preparatory acts rather than completed offenses. Section 38 deals with the offense of being a member of a terrorist organization, while Section 39 addresses support given to a terrorist organization. The broad language of these provisions has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and legal scholars who argue that the Act’s vague definitions enable its misuse against political dissenters and social activists.

The most contentious provision, however, remains Section 43D(5), which states that no person accused of offenses punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act shall be released on bail if the court, upon perusal of the case diary or police report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. This provision effectively reverses the general principle in criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” creating instead a presumption against bail for UAPA accused [4].

The Bhima Koregaon Case: Background and Charges Against Mahesh Raut

The Bhima Koregaon case began with the Elgar Parishad event organized on December 31, 2017, at Shaniwar Wada in Pune to mark two hundred years since the Battle of Bhima Koregaon, a historically significant event for the Dalit community. The next day, violence erupted near the Koregaon Bhima war memorial during the annual commemoration, resulting in one death and injuries to several people. The Pune Police initially investigated the case, but in January 2020, the investigation was transferred to the National Investigation Agency.

Authorities claimed that the Elgar Parishad event featured speeches that provoked the subsequent violence and that the event was backed by the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The investigation subsequently expanded to arrest sixteen activists, lawyers, and academics between June 2018 and October 2020, charging them with various offenses under the UAPA and IPC. The accused included prominent human rights defenders such as Sudha Bharadwaj, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Varavara Rao, Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, and the late Father Stan Swamy, who died in custody in July 2021 while awaiting bail.

Mahesh Raut was charged under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA, along with Sections 121, 121A, 124A, 153A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution’s case against Raut primarily relied on two letters allegedly recovered from the computer of co-accused Rona Wilson, which purportedly showed Raut’s involvement with Maoist activities. The NIA contended that Raut was a member of CPI (Maoist), had participated in fact-finding missions to propagate the organization’s ideology, and had received funds from the banned outfit. The prosecution also alleged that Raut attended panchayat meetings in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district and was part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against the state and assassinate the Prime Minister.

However, Raut’s defense counsel, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai and Advocate Vijay Hiremath, argued that the letters allegedly linking Raut to Maoist activities were neither recovered from Raut’s possession nor signed by him. They emphasized that Raut, a TISS graduate and former fellow of the Prime Minister’s Rural Development Programme, had worked legitimately with the Gadchiroli Collector on tribal and forest rights issues. The defense further contended that Raut had already spent over five years in custody without trial, and the evidence against him did not justify his continued detention under the stringent provisions of UAPA.

The Bombay High Court’s Bail Order: Legal Reasoning and Analysis

On September 21, 2023, a Division Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh of the Bombay High Court granted regular bail to Mahesh Raut, making him the sixth accused in the Bhima Koregaon case to receive bail after Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Anand Teltumbde, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira [1]. The High Court’s decision was grounded in a careful examination of the evidence presented by the NIA and an assessment of whether the stringent conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were satisfied.

The High Court observed that prima facie, Sections 13 and 38 of the UAPA were applicable against Raut, relating to unlawful activities and membership of a terrorist organization. However, the Court found that Sections 16, 17, and 18, which deal with terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, were not made out against him based on the materials on record. This distinction was crucial because Section 43D(5)’s stringent bail restrictions apply to offenses under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, and the Court’s finding that the more serious terrorism-related charges were not prima facie established weakened the case for denying bail.

The Court applied the principle of parity, noting that bail had been granted to co-accused Anand Teltumbde by the Bombay High Court in November 2022, and to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira by the Supreme Court in July 2023. The principle of parity in bail matters suggests that when multiple accused face similar charges based on similar evidence, differential treatment in bail decisions should be avoided unless there are compelling distinguishing factors. The defense successfully argued that Raut’s case was similarly placed to these co-accused, particularly because the evidence against him consisted primarily of documents not recovered from his possession and not bearing his signature.

The Court also took into account the prolonged period of Raut’s incarceration. By the time of the bail order, Raut had spent over five years in judicial custody, and the trial had not yet commenced. There was no indication that the trial would begin in the near future, given the complexity of the case, the number of accused, and the voluminous evidence that the prosecution intended to present. The Court recognized that indefinite pre-trial detention, especially when the accused has already served a substantial portion of any potential sentence, raises serious questions about violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, responding to the NIA’s request for time to challenge the bail order before the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court stayed its own order for one week, initially requested by the NIA as two weeks but granted for one week. This stay provision allowed the investigating agency time to file an appeal while preventing immediate release of the accused, demonstrating judicial sensitivity to both the prosecution’s concerns and the accused’s rights.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention: Stay on Bail and Subsequent Developments

Following the Bombay High Court’s bail order, the NIA filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the decision. On September 27, 2023, a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi extended the stay on Raut’s bail order till October 5, 2023, and subsequently continued extending the stay periodically [5]. This meant that despite the Bombay High Court finding merit in granting Raut bail, he remained in custody at Taloja Central Prison while the Supreme Court considered the NIA’s appeal.

The prolonged stay on the bail order created a peculiar legal situation where Raut had been found entitled to bail on merits by the High Court, yet continued to remain incarcerated. This raised important questions about the balance between the right of the investigating agency to challenge adverse orders and the liberty of the accused who has been found deserving of bail by a competent court. Over the following two years, Raut remained in custody, though he was granted temporary relief on several occasions for specific purposes.

In April 2024, the trial court granted Raut interim bail to attend his second-semester LLB examinations, recognizing his right to education despite incarceration. In September 2024, the Bombay High Court directed Siddharth Law College, Mumbai, to admit Raut as a student for the 2024-2027 LLB batch, holding that imprisonment cannot strip a person of their fundamental right to education. These orders reflected judicial recognition that even while the substantive question of bail remained unresolved, certain fundamental rights could not be suspended indefinitely.

Most significantly, on September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court granted Raut interim medical bail for six weeks on humanitarian grounds. A Bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed this order after Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned that Raut suffered from Rheumatoid Arthritis, an autoimmune disorder affecting bones and muscles, requiring specialized treatment not available in prison facilities. The Court noted that Raut had been granted bail on merits by the Bombay High Court, though that order remained stayed, and granted the interim relief considering both his medical condition and the fact that he had been found entitled to bail by the High Court [6].

Judicial Interpretation of Section 43D(5) UAPA: The Evolution of Bail Jurisprudence

The bail jurisprudence under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA has evolved through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments that have shaped how courts interpret the “prima facie true” standard and balance national security concerns with individual liberty. Understanding this evolution is essential to appreciating the significance of the Bombay High Court’s decision in Mahesh Raut’s case.

The restrictive interpretation of Section 43D(5) was firmly established in the Supreme Court’s decision in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, decided on April 2, 2019 [7]. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Zahoor Watali, a businessman accused of terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, courts should not conduct a detailed analysis of evidence or question the admissibility of materials presented by the prosecution. The Court stated that the materials and evidence collated by the investigating agency must be presumed true unless contradicted by other evidence, and the degree of satisfaction required at the bail stage is “prima facie,” which is a relatively low standard compared to the threshold for discharge or conviction.

The Watali judgment effectively created a presumption in favor of denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that if the prosecution presents materials that, on their face, show involvement of the accused, bail should be denied. This interpretation made it extremely difficult for UAPA accused to secure bail, as they were prevented from challenging the reliability or authenticity of prosecution evidence at the bail stage. The judgment emphasized that bail is the exception and jail is the rule under UAPA, reversing the general principle applicable in ordinary criminal cases.

However, a significant departure from this strict approach came with the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, delivered on February 1, 2021 [8]. Najeeb, accused under UAPA for involvement in a terrorist attack in Kerala, had been in custody for over five years without trial. The Kerala High Court had granted him bail considering the prolonged delay in trial, which the Union of India challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment by a Bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, upheld the High Court’s bail order and established crucial principles regarding the constitutional limitations on statutory bail restrictions.

The Court held that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) of UAPA does not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court observed that whereas at the commencement of proceedings, courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail, the rigors of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.

The K.A. Najeeb judgment created an important constitutional exception to the stringent bail provisions of UAPA, establishing that fundamental rights considerations can override statutory restrictions when pre-trial detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. This principle has been invoked in subsequent cases to grant bail to UAPA accused who have suffered extended periods of incarceration without trial, recognizing that indefinite detention without adjudication of guilt amounts to punishment without trial, violating basic principles of criminal justice.

Further evolution in bail jurisprudence came with the Supreme Court’s decision in Vernon Gonsalves v. State of Maharashtra, decided on July 28, 2023 [9]. In this case, activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, co-accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, challenged the Bombay High Court’s order denying them bail. The Supreme Court granted bail to both accused, significantly departing from the restrictive approach in Watali. The Court held that the prima facie test under Section 43D(5) would not be satisfied unless there is at least a surface analysis of the probative value of the evidence at the bail stage, and the quality of evidence must satisfy the court of its worth.

The Vernon Gonsalves judgment explicitly disagreed with the Watali interpretation regarding how the prima facie test should be applied. The Court emphasized that mere possession of literature propagating violence or promoting overthrow of the democratically elected government, witness statements, or letters recovered from co-accused persons does not prove involvement in terrorist acts within the definition of UAPA. The judgment held that courts must examine whether the evidence has probative value and reliability, rather than accepting prosecution materials at face value without any scrutiny. This represented a significant shift towards a more balanced approach that protects individual liberty while maintaining national security concerns.

The Right to Speedy Trial and Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention

The principle of speedy trial is recognized as an essential component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has consistently held in judgments such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996) that prolonged detention of undertrials without trial violates constitutional guarantees and amounts to punishment without conviction. This principle becomes particularly significant in UAPA cases, where the stringent bail provisions often result in extended periods of incarceration before charges are even framed.

In Mahesh Raut’s case, he spent over five years in judicial custody from his arrest in June 2018 to the Bombay High Court’s bail order in September 2023, and continued in custody even after that due to the Supreme Court’s stay on the bail order. During this entire period, the trial did not commence, and there was no indication of when it would begin. The prosecution indicated its intention to examine 276 witnesses, suggesting that the trial, once commenced, would be lengthy and complex. Given the typical pace of criminal trials in India, particularly in cases involving multiple accused and voluminous evidence, Raut faced the prospect of spending many more years in custody before any adjudication of guilt.

This situation exemplifies the tension between the legislative policy reflected in Section 43D(5), which seeks to deny bail to those accused of serious terrorism-related offenses, and the constitutional imperative of protecting individual liberty through the right to speedy trial. The K.A. Najeeb judgment recognized this tension and held that constitutional protections must prevail when statutory provisions lead to indefinite or prolonged detention without trial. The judgment established that courts must balance the seriousness of charges with the period of custody suffered and the likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time.

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahesh Raut took these principles into account, recognizing that five years of pre-trial detention without any certainty of trial commencement constituted a violation of his fundamental rights. The Court’s finding that the more serious charges under Sections 16, 17, and 18 UAPA were not prima facie established further strengthened the case for bail, as it indicated that even if ultimately convicted, Raut might not receive a sentence substantially longer than the period he had already spent in custody. This consideration, rooted in the principle that bail should be granted when the accused has already served a significant portion of any potential sentence, reflects a pragmatic approach to preventing miscarriage of justice through excessive pre-trial detention.

Comparative Analysis: Bail Granted to Co-Accused in the Bhima Koregaon Case

The Bhima Koregaon case, involving sixteen accused persons charged with similar offenses under UAPA and IPC, has witnessed a gradual process of bail being granted to several accused over the years, creating important precedents regarding the application of bail jurisprudence. Understanding the pattern of bail grants in this case provides insight into how courts have interpreted the evidence and applied legal principles differently to various accused.

Sudha Bharadwaj, a lawyer and activist, was the first among the Bhima Koregaon accused to receive bail. She was granted default bail by the Bombay High Court in December 2021 after the NIA failed to file the chargesheet within the stipulated 90-day period, which was extended to 180 days under UAPA provisions. Default bail is granted as a matter of right when the investigating agency fails to complete investigation and file chargesheet within the prescribed period, and courts have held that even stringent bail provisions under special laws do not override this statutory right.

Varavara Rao, an 82-year-old Telugu poet and activist, was granted medical bail by the Supreme Court in 2022 considering his advanced age and serious health conditions. Medical bail represents another exception to the stringent bail provisions, granted on humanitarian grounds when the accused suffers from serious medical conditions requiring treatment that cannot be adequately provided in prison. Father Stan Swamy, another elderly accused in the case, sought medical bail but died in custody in July 2021 while his bail application was pending, highlighting the tragic consequences of prolonged detention of vulnerable accused.

Anand Teltumbde, a Dalit scholar and academic, was granted regular bail by the Bombay High Court in November 2022. The High Court found that the evidence against him, which included alleged electronic communications and documents, did not establish prima facie involvement in terrorist activities as defined under UAPA. The Court emphasized the need to examine the probative value of digital evidence and not merely accept the prosecution’s narrative without scrutiny. This decision was significant because it involved detailed analysis of electronic evidence, which forms the basis of charges against most accused in the Bhima Koregaon case.

Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira received bail from the Supreme Court on July 28, 2023, in a landmark judgment that explicitly departed from the restrictive interpretation in the Watali case. The Supreme Court found that the evidence against them, consisting primarily of possession of banned literature and alleged membership of proscribed organizations, did not establish involvement in terrorist acts. The Court held that mere possession of extremist literature or ideological affiliation does not constitute terrorist activity, and there must be evidence of active participation in planning or executing terrorist acts.

The pattern of bail grants in the Bhima Koregaon case reveals that courts have been willing to grant bail when: (1) the prosecution’s case relies primarily on circumstantial evidence such as possession of literature or alleged associations rather than direct evidence of terrorist activities; (2) the accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial detention; (3) the evidence lacks probative value or reliability; and (4) there is parity with co-accused who have been granted bail on similar grounds. These factors collectively informed the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahesh Raut, who like other co-accused, faced charges based primarily on documents not recovered from his possession and had spent years in custody without trial.

Conclusion: Implications for Civil Liberties and Anti-Terror Legislation

The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mahesh Raut, though stayed by the Supreme Court, represents an important development in the ongoing struggle to balance national security concerns with protection of civil liberties in India’s anti-terror legal framework. The case highlights fundamental tensions within the UAPA between the state’s legitimate interest in combating terrorism and preventing threats to national security, and the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty, presumption of innocence, and right to speedy trial that form the bedrock of criminal justice in a democratic society.

The evolution of bail jurisprudence from the restrictive approach in Watali to the more balanced positions in K.A. Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves reflects growing judicial concern about the misuse of anti-terror laws against political dissenters, social activists, and human rights defenders. Courts have increasingly recognized that the broad and vague language of UAPA provisions, combined with stringent bail restrictions, can lead to situations where individuals are effectively punished through prolonged pre-trial detention without any adjudication of guilt. This reality contradicts fundamental principles of criminal justice that require guilt to be established through fair trial before punishment is imposed.

The Supreme Court’s periodic extension of stay on Raut’s bail order, while granting him interim medical bail, creates an anomalous situation that raises questions about the effectiveness of bail as a remedy for protecting liberty. When an accused found entitled to bail by a High Court on merits continues to remain in custody for years while appeals are pending, it undermines the purpose of bail as an interim measure to prevent unjust pre-trial detention. This situation suggests the need for clearer guidelines on how long stay orders on bail can be maintained and whether there should be automatic sunset provisions that limit the duration of such stays.

The Bhima Koregaon case also raises broader questions about the use of anti-terror legislation to prosecute social and political activism. Most of the accused in this case are activists, lawyers, and academics whose work focused on Dalit rights, tribal rights, civil liberties, and challenging government policies through legal and democratic means. The prosecution’s theory that their activism constituted terrorist conspiracy has been questioned by human rights organizations, legal experts, and international observers who view the case as an attempt to criminalize dissent. The gradual process of bail being granted to various accused suggests that courts are skeptical of the prosecution’s expansive interpretation of UAPA provisions to encompass political and social activism.

Moving forward, there is need for legislative reform of UAPA to introduce greater specificity in defining offenses, clearer standards for evidence, and more balanced bail provisions that do not effectively deny the presumption of innocence. Courts, while bound to apply existing law, have shown willingness to interpret provisions in ways that protect constitutional rights, but ultimate responsibility for ensuring that anti-terror laws serve their intended purpose without becoming instruments of political repression lies with the legislature. The Bhima Koregaon case, particularly the bail order for Mahesh Raut, will remain an important reference point in ongoing debates about civil liberties, national security, and the proper limits of state power in a constitutional democracy.

References

[1] Bar and Bench. (2023). Bhima Koregaon riots: Bombay High Court grants bail to Mahesh Raut; sixth accused to get bail. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/bhima-koregaon-riots-bombay-high-court-grants-bail-mahesh-raut 

[2] Live Law. (2023). Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Bhima Koregaon Accused Mahesh Raut, Stays Bail For Two Weeks At NIA’s Request. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/bombay-high-court-grants-bail-to-bhima-koregaon-accused-mahesh-raut-238297 

[3] Sabrang India. (2023). Bhima Koregaon Case: Mahesh Raut, youngest accused, granted bail by the Bombay HC! Available at: https://sabrangindia.in/bhima-koregaon-case-mahesh-raut-youngest-accused-granted-bail-by-the-bombay-hc/ 

[4] Drishti IAS. (2025). Granting bail in UAPA cases. Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/bail-under-uapa 

[5] Bar and Bench. (2023). Bhima Koregaon: Supreme Court extends Bombay High Court stay on bail to Mahesh Raut. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/bhima-koregaon-supreme-court-extends-bombay-high-court-stay-bail-mahesh-raut 

[6] Bar and Bench. (2025). Supreme Court grants interim bail to Bhima Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut on medical grounds. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-grants-interim-bail-to-bhima-koregaon-accused-mahesh-raut-on-medical-grounds-2 

[7] Indian Kanoon. (2019). National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali on 2 April, 2019. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117627977 

[8] Indian Kanoon. (2021). Union Of India vs K.A. Najeeb on 1 February, 2021. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18346623/ 

[9] Live Law. (2023). Supreme Court Grants Bail To Vernon Gonsalves & Arun Ferreira In Bhima Koregaon Case. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-sc-bail-uapa-bhima-koregaon-accused-vernon-gonsalves-arun-ferreira-233833