The Mumbai sessions court has officially rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two Tata Institute of Social Sciences students, explicitly citing allegations that they raised slogans demanding the immediate release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam during an October 2025 campus gathering. While the court granted pre-arrest bail to seven other co-accused students who had attended the memorial held on the death anniversary of former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba, it drew a firm distinction regarding the two applicants. In its ruling, the court observed that paying homage to Saibaba, who had been acquitted of all charges prior to his death, was not in itself an illegal act. However, the prosecution argued that the event was transformed into an unauthorised platform to chant slogans in favour of Umar Khalid, who has been incarcerated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act since September 2020 for his alleged role in the Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case, and that students are expected to strictly respect and abide by the law of the land. In detailing the grounds for denying pre-arrest protection, the court highlighted that the allegations against the two students extended beyond vocal support for Umar Khalid to include the recovery of potentially objectionable digital content from their personal devices.
Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hirey submitted forensic reports indicating that laptops and mobile phones belonging to the accused contained downloaded texts and documents reflecting Maoist ideology, including works by Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong and Kobad Ghandy, alongside materials linked to the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. The prosecution further asserted that certain electronic files had been systematically deleted prior to the seizure of the devices, suggesting an attempt to suppress evidence. The court noted that while possessing academic literature is generally evaluated within a broader context, combining such digital materials with public sloganeering for high-profile UAPA accused like Umar Khalid weighed significantly against granting discretionary anticipatory bail. Defense counsel Vijay Hiremath vehemently contested the prosecution’s narrative, arguing that reading widely available political literature and expressing solidarity do not constitute an offence or demonstrate membership in a banned organizational outfit. The defense emphasised that the October 2025 event was intended purely as an academic and memorial gathering centred on social justice, disability rights and literature in memory of Saibaba, rather than a political demonstration to glorify Umar Khalid or promote unlawful activities.
Despite these arguments, the sessions court concluded that the combination of electronic recoveries, alleged data deletion and specific sloganeering concerning Umar Khalid created a prima facie case requiring further investigation without pre-arrest protection. The remaining seven students were directed to cooperate with law enforcement as a condition of their bail.
Distipanna Bhuyan