Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
A Special NIA Court in Mumbai on Saturday rejected the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) applications seeking cancellation of bail granted to activists P Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Sudha Bharadwaj and Arun Ferreira in the Elgar Parishad case, holding that the agency had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish a violation of their bail conditions.
The Elgar Parishad case dates back to 2018 and involves allegations that activists and others were linked to the banned CPI (Maoist) and were involved in activities described by the prosecution as part of an “Urban Naxal” network. The accused have been facing these allegations since the case came to light, though trial in the case is yet to begin.
advertisement
The latest dispute arose over a gathering held at the terrace of the Mumbai Press Club on January 19, 2026. The NIA alleged that the four activists attended the meeting in violation of their bail conditions.
WHY DID NIA SEEK BAIL CANCELLATION?
The agency claimed that the gathering was intended to propagate the ideology of the proscribed CPI (Maoist) and discuss the future course of the “Urban Naxal” movement.
The NIA alleged that the presence of the four activists at the gathering breached a bail condition prohibiting them from contacting or communicating with co-accused or people involved in similar activities. It also sought their immediate arrest.
The four activists, however, told the court that the meeting had been called by former journalists and social activists and that they had not organised it.
They submitted that discussions at the gathering included prison life, the future course of action of co-accused Gautam Navlakha after his move to Delhi, how the case against another co-accused, Surendra Gadling, would proceed, his prospects of release and his prevailing health condition in prison.
The activists said they had not invited any other accused and did not know that other co-accused had been invited to the gathering. They also denied attempting to contact or communicate with any co-accused or anyone involved in similar activities.
WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?
Special Judge Chakor S. Baviskar, after hearing the matter, held that cancellation of bail requires “very cogent and overwhelming circumstances”. The court said such action is warranted in cases involving supervening circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice, abuse of bail or a likelihood of absconding.
The court also examined CCTV footage of the gathering submitted by the NIA. However, it noted that the footage had no audio and therefore could not establish what conversations took place.
The presence of the accused and co-accused at the gathering, by itself, did not establish that they had assembled to engage in similar activities or propagate Maoist ideology, the court observed.
It further held that even if the activists had discussed the case or their co-accused, that alone would not amount to a breach of their bail conditions.
The court therefore rejected the NIA’s applications seeking cancellation of bail.
However, it cautioned the activists to exercise greater care and avoid situations that could give rise to allegations of violating their bail conditions.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
