Jyoti Jagtap, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case and member of Kabir Kala Manch which is allegedly a frontal organisation of banned terror outfit CPI (Maoist)
On August 22, the Supreme Court orally observed that deciding the bail application of Jyoti Jagtap, accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case, would involve the determination of whether her case ‘fits the formula’ relied upon in deciding bail applications of co-accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. The court has also adjourned the hearing until September 21.
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, was hearing Jyoti Jagtap’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s decision to refuse her bail. “There is a formula in which we have decided the other two. The question is whether this fits in that formula or not,” Justice Bose remarked.
Jyoti Jagtap is a member of the Kabir Kala Manch (KKM) which is alleged to be a front for the banned terror outfit Communist Party of India (Maoist). The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested Jagtap on September 2020, for her involvement in organising the Elgar Parishad on December 31, 2017, which led to violence on the following day.
On July 28, the Supreme Court granted bail to the two co-accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case – Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira. The two accused were booked under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It was alleged that Gonsalves and Ferreira have links with the banned outfit CPI (Maoist).
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision to refuse bail to the two co-accused on grounds that they were lodged in jail for about five years. The court had said that while the allegations against the accused are serious, it cannot be the sole ground to refuse bail and the materials against the two co-accused could not justify continued detention.
Background
On October 17, 2022, the Bombay High Court refused bail to Jyoti Jagtap and observed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against her having conspired, attempted, advocated and abated the commission of a “terrorist act” was prima face true.
The Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case concerns the conference held in Shaniwar Wada, Pune, on December 31, 2017, where the speakers made provocative speeches and performances which disrupted the communal harmony and led to violence in Bhima Koregaon the next day.
The NIA registered a case against 16 accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA based on the documents recovered from their electronic devices. Notably, the banned CPI (Maoist) had an organisation role to play in the programme with an intention to “infiltrate, inculcate and permeate” its ideology amongst the masses, mostly impoverished classes and misguide them towards violent unconstitutional activities.
“We have carefully gone through the transcript of the stage play enacted by KKM members. The entire transcript is placed at Page Nos. 160 to 165 and is part of chargesheet. On reading the same, we are afraid to state that the role played by KKM and its activists on the date of event was not only aggressive, but also highly provocative and clearly designed to incite hatred and ignite passion,” the Bombay High Court had observed in its 47-page order.
The high court noted that there were a number of innuendos in the texts, words and performances of the KKM which were seeking to overthrow the democratically elected government, and ridicule the government while mentioning certain excerpts to highlight Jagtap’s role. The court further noted that the provocative performances during the conference referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as an infant and ridiculed Sanatan Dharma, Ram Mandir and Shivaji Mandir.
The court further noted that the speakers invoked Tipu Sultan’s actions of murdering Hindus and bringing down temples. The speakers had also claimed that the Peshwas committed atrocities against Dalits while noting the larger conspiracy of the CPI (Maoist) and KKM within the Elgar Parishad.
“KKM admittedly performed and incited hatred and passion by performing on the above agenda in the Elgar Parishad event. There is thus definitely a larger conspiracy within the Elgar Parishad conspiracy by KKM and CPI(M),” the court noted.
“The invite clearly mentions the name of Jyoti Jagtap (Appellant) as one of the invitee as also the contact person along with the names of Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor who are active members of KKM as also three other persons. Hence her participation in the event was not merely restricted to her performance but was part of a larger conspiracy of CPI(M),” the court noted.
The court further referred to a co-ordinate bench’s verdict dated September 19, 2022, to highlight the role of the CPI (Maoist) in attempting to destabilise India by carrying out killings methodically and engaging in armed conflict. The Bombay High Court reproduced relevant paragraphs from the co-ordinate bench’s verdict refusing bail to co-accused Hany Babu.
“It is seen that Appellant was in active touch with all other co-accused working for different mask organizations to further the objectives of CPI(M). The Elgar Parishad event is thus a smaller conspiracy within the larger design and conspiracy of CPI(M) to further its agenda. From one of the letters it is seen that there is a congratulatory message given for the success of the Elgar Parishad event and a direction is issued to exploit the death of the youth in the violence on the following day. It is also seen that CPI(M) has chalked out a detailed strategy for furtherance of its objective to overthrow the democratically elected government of our country and the Appellant and other co-accused are prima facie actively strategising the same,” the Bombay High Court said.
“The entire material produced before us by NIA clearly shows that the Elgar Parishad event was used and organized to establish underground contact with the banned terrorist organization CPI(M) through its activist which include the Appellant. It is seen that pursuant to the said programme, there was large scale violence resulting in unrest and death of one person,” the high court added.
Leave a Comment