On 8 December 2025, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to an Assam college professor, Mohammed Joynal Abedin, who is accused of making “pro-Pakistan” remarks during this year’s Indo-Pak conflict and of posting obscene content on social media. According to the allegations, Abedin posted messages on Facebook stating, “We are with the brother of Pakistani citizens… we will be with them in future also,” and expressed support for the President of Turkey for backing Pakistani citizens.

In this report, we take a look at 32 different instances between 2014 and 2025 in which courts granted relief to individuals described as radicals, including accused persons in cases involving rape, blackmail, terrorism-related offences, and alleged anti-national activities.

Cases Where Bail Was Granted

#1 Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Professor Over Social Media Remarks – 8 December 2025

The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Mohammed Joynal Abedin, a college professor from Assam accused of making pro-Pakistan remarks during the Indo-Pak conflict and posting obscene content on social media. According to allegations, Abedin posted on Facebook stating “we are with the brother of Pakistani citizens” and “we will be with them in future also,” while also expressing support for Turkey’s President for siding with Pakistani citizens. The petitioner, employed at a government college, had already been suspended from his position and had spent 179 days in custody at the time of the bail grant. The Supreme Court considered the prolonged detention period while granting relief in this politically sensitive case.

#2 Delhi High Court’s Split Decision in Hizb-ul-Mujahideen Terror Funding Case – 12 August 2025

The Delhi High Court delivered differential bail orders in a case involving alleged terror-funding and secessionist activities linked to the proscribed organization Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operating in Jammu and Kashmir. The court granted bail to Syed Ahmad Shakeel, who had spent approximately six years and eleven months in custody, observing that with uncertainty surrounding trial completion, continued detention would no longer serve justice. However, the same bench denied bail to co-accused Shahid Yusuf, noting a prima facie case existed against him including direct links with known members of the banned organization and alleged receipt of funds intended for terrorist activity.

#3 Rajasthan High Court Suspends Life Sentences in 1992 Ajmer Rape Case – 9 August 2025

The Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentences of four convicts in the notorious 1992 Ajmer rape and blackmail case and granted them bail. Zameer Hussain, Iqbal Bhati, Salim Chisti, and Nafees Chisti were released from Ajmer Central Jail following the order. The case involved a gang that systematically raped and blackmailed school and college girls in Ajmer. A special POCSO court in Ajmer had sentenced six individuals to life imprisonment on 20 August 2024 for their involvement. The case has a lengthy legal history, with twelve individuals initially sentenced to life terms in 1998, followed by convictions of six more in 2024, making this one of India’s most prolonged cases of organized sexual exploitation.

VIDEO | Ajmer: Jaipur High Court grants bail to four accused, Nafees Chishti, Iqbal Bhati, Salim Chishti, and Syed Zameer Hussain, in the Ajmer 1992 blackmail case. They have been released from Ajmer Central Jail.

Speaking to PTI, Ashish Rajoria, representing the accused says,… pic.twitter.com/H00nqGYUK1

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 12, 2025

#4 Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Mosque Committee Chairman in Sambhal Violence – 25 July 2025

Justice Sameer Jain of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Zafar Ali, Chairman of the Shahi Jama Masjid Committee, in connection with violence that erupted in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The violence occurred on 24 November 2024 when a court-ordered survey was being conducted in the mosque complex to ascertain whether a temple had previously existed at that site. Zafar Ali was arrested in March 2025 and had spent approximately four months in judicial custody before being granted relief.

#5 Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Alleged ISIS Module Leader After Two Years – 23 July 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to Syed Nabeel Ahmed, 36, the main accused in an alleged ISIS module case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, after nearly two years in custody. The NIA had alleged that Nabeel was radicalized in Qatar and, having earlier links with the Popular Front of India, was made the ‘Ameer’ (leader) of an ISIS module in Kerala. Accusations included plotting terrorist attacks, conducting reconnaissance of Hindu temples, and participating in a thirty lakh rupee robbery to fund ISIS activities. A division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar granted bail invoking the constitutional principle of equality, despite the serious nature of the allegations against the accused.

#6 Supreme Court Grants Bail to Former PFI General Secretary in UAPA Case – 21 May 2025

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Abdul Sattar, former General Secretary of the banned organization Popular Front of India, in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Abdul Sattar had been arrested in Kerala on allegations of conspiring in the 2022 murder of RSS leader Srinivasan and for allegedly organizing violent protests and strikes following the ban on PFI. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail in this high-profile case involving the leadership of a banned organization marked a significant development in the legal proceedings against PFI members. The bail grant came despite serious allegations connecting the accused to both conspiracy to murder and organizing violent protests against government action.

#7 Supreme Court Upholds Bail for ISIS Sympathizer in UAPA Case – 14 May 2025

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision granting bail to Ammar Abdul Rahiman, who was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged ISIS links. The Court noted his three-year custody period, cooperation during investigation, and consistent court appearances as factors favoring bail. With over 160 witnesses listed and the trial ongoing, the Supreme Court found no reason to revoke bail granted by the lower court. However, strict conditions were imposed, including a bar on foreign travel without explicit permission.

#8 Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Alleged PFI Promoter Citing Non-Incriminating Evidence – 28 April 2025

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mohammad Irfan Daulat Khan, an alleged Popular Front of India promoter in Malegaon, who was arrested for inciting anti-government sentiments. The court noted that audio clips and witness statements presented by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad were not incriminating and suggested Khan was actually spreading “good messages” like personality development and legal awareness. Bail was granted due to slow trial progress and on grounds of parity with co-accused who had already been released.

#9 Kerala High Court Grants Bail in ISIS Module Recruitment Case – 9 April 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to Ashif and T S Shiyas, who were accused of forming an ISIS module and recruiting vulnerable youths in Kerala. The court observed that charges had not yet been framed in the case and the trial was unlikely to commence soon. Considering the prolonged detention and slow investigation process, the bench granted bail with strict conditions including provision of sureties, restrictions on movement, and monitoring of communications during the bail period. The decision reflected judicial concern about indefinite pre-trial detention in cases where the investigation and trial process moved at a glacial pace, potentially violating the accused’s fundamental rights while awaiting trial on serious terrorism charges.

#10 Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Ten PFI Members in RSS Leader Murder – 2 April 2025

The Kerala High Court granted bail to ten Popular Front of India members accused in the 2022 murder of RSS leader K S Sreenivasan in Palakkad. The court cited prolonged pre-trial detention and procedural lapses, including failure to provide arrest grounds to two of the accused, as reasons for granting relief. With trial proceedings stayed by the Supreme Court and over 1,000 witnesses involved, the court noted the improbability of a timely trial and granted conditional bail.

#11 Bombay High Court Grants Bail in PFI-Linked UAPA Case – 28 March 2025

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi, arrested in 2022 for alleged links to the banned Popular Front of India under UAPA provisions. While the Anti-Terrorism Squad accused him of being part of a conspiracy to revolt against the government, the court noted that evidence only showed Qureshi gave speeches on legal awareness. The judges held that such activity could not be termed anti-national and found no direct link between his past record and the present charges. The court’s decision emphasized the distinction between legitimate legal awareness activities and genuine anti-national conspiracy, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish evidence of the latter despite invoking stringent anti-terror provisions.

#12 Bombay High Court Grants Conditional Bail to PFI District Functionaries – 17 February 2025

The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench granted conditional bail to Mohammad Nisar and Mohammed Abdul Karim, former district-level office-bearers of the banned Popular Front of India in Parbhani, who were arrested in 2022 by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad under UAPA and IPC charges. The accused were ordered to report daily at Parbhani’s Nanalpeth Police Station, remain within designated jurisdictions, and surrender their passports to authorities. The court issued a stern warning that any tampering with evidence or violation of bail conditions could lead to immediate cancellation of bail.

#13 Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Patriotic Conditions for Pro-Pakistan Slogan Case Bail – 15 October 2024

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to Faizal alias Faizan, who was arrested after an FIR was registered at Misrod Police Station in Bhopal in May 2024 for allegedly raising pro-Pakistan slogans. Justice Paliwal granted bail on condition that Faizan furnish a personal bond of fifty thousand rupees and a solvent surety of the same amount. However, the bail came with unique conditions: to remain out on bail until trial completion, Faizan must raise the slogan “Bharat Mata ki Jai” twice every month and salute the national flag 21 times at a Bhopal police station.

#14 Delhi High Court Grants Bail to SIMI Member Based on Limited Role – 11 September 2024

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohammad Haneef, accused of involvement in the banned Students Islamic Movement of India outfit, noting his alleged role was limited to proofreading SIMI’s Islamic Movement magazine rather than authoring provocative content. The Court found that his name surfaced 22 days after the FIR was registered and that evidence pointed more to mistaken identity than direct incitement to violence or terrorism. With no specific criminal act attributed to him personally, and considering that co-accused were already out on bail, the Court allowed his release on a bond of fifty thousand rupees with conditions.

#15 Supreme Court Applies General Bail Principles to UAPA Cases – 13 August 2024 

The Supreme Court granted bail to Mohammad Shahabuddin, a former Bihar Police constable accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and held that the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” also applies to special laws such as UAPA. Mohammad Shahabuddin had been arrested in 2022 on allegations of being linked with the Popular Front of India and for allegedly renting one floor of his house to members of the organization for unlawful activities. The Court noted that he had already been in custody for more than two years and the trial had not even begun.

#16 Bombay High Court Grants Default Bail Due to Procedural Lapses – 15 July 2024

The Bombay High Court granted default bail to Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari, accused of being members of the banned Popular Front of India, citing procedural lapses by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. The court held that the fifteen-day extension granted for awaiting government sanction to file a chargesheet was not legally valid under the Criminal Procedure Code. The bench emphasized that administrative delays cannot override the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

#17 Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case Due to Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – 3 July 2024

The Supreme Court granted bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, arrested for allegedly smuggling counterfeit currency linked to a cross-border terror plot. The Court noted his four-year incarceration without charges being framed and the National Investigation Agency’s plan to examine 80 witnesses, which would delay the trial indefinitely. Emphasizing Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial, the Court held that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of the offence’s gravity.

#18 Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Indian Mujahideen Co-Founder – 10 May 2024

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Abdul Subhan Qureshi, alleged co-founder of Indian Mujahideen and former Students Islamic Movement of India member, citing nearly five years of pre-trial detention that exceeded half the maximum sentence for the offences charged under UAPA and IPC. The Court noted that co-accused were already on bail and the trial was far from conclusion, thus allowing relief under Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, with specific conditions to be set by the trial court.

#19 Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Ghazwa-e-Hind Case – 6 May 2024

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Muneer Alam, accused of receiving funds from the Popular Front of India for anti-national activities linked to establishing “Ghazwa-e-Hind” in India. The court noted that the chargesheet had already been filed and co-accused in the case had previously been granted bail. Observing that the trial would take considerable time due to multiple witnesses and citing prolonged detention since 3 July 2023, the court allowed bail under strict conditions, including mandatory monthly court appearances and movement restrictions.

#20 Telangana High Court Balances Security Concerns with Individual Liberty – 21 March 2024

The Telangana High Court granted conditional bail to seven individuals accused of involvement in terrorist activities linked to the banned Popular Front of India. Originally arrested by Nizamabad Police and later charged by the National Investigation Agency, the accused faced allegations of conspiracy to establish Islamic rule in India. The court balanced concerns of national security and individual liberty, citing insufficient evidence of direct terrorist acts and highlighting the accused’s prior social welfare work. Bail was granted with strict conditions, including non-interference in the trial and surrendering passports.

#21 Lucknow NIA Court Finds No Evidence Against Alleged PFI Member – 7 January 2023

The NIA Special Court in Lucknow granted bail to Abdullah Saud Ansari, a 27-year-old laborer arrested in September 2022 for alleged association with the banned Popular Front of India. Booked under sections of the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Ansari was accused of being an active PFI member since 2017. However, the court found no substantial evidence linking him to any anti-national activity and noted procedural lapses in his detention. Bail was granted on a bond of fifty thousand rupees with two sureties.

#22 Chennai NIA Court Grants Bail to SDPI General Secretary – 17 October 2023

The NIA Special Court in Chennai granted conditional bail to Moin Mistri, the General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India for Theni district, arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged association with the banned Popular Front of India. The court found the prosecution’s claim that the petitioner may abscond or tamper with evidence as untenable due to his public and political position. It held that his association with PFI predates its ban and relied on precedent set in M. Mohd. Abbas v. State, granting bail with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation if conditions are breached. The decision recognized the distinction between lawful political activity and post-ban criminal association.

#23 Madras High Court Emphasizes Constitutional Rights in ISIS Case – 14 November 2023

The Madras High Court granted bail to Mohamed Irfan, a meat seller arrested under UAPA for alleged ISIS links, citing prolonged pre-trial detention since February 2022 without charges being framed. The court emphasized that indefinite detention violates constitutional and human rights, and suspicion alone is not sufficient grounds to deny bail. Irfan was ordered to stay in Chennai and appear daily before the trial court.

#24 Bombay High Court Grants Bail After Seven Years in ISIS Case – 28 June 2022

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Mohammad Raisuddin, accused of ISIS links in the 2016 Parbhani terror case, after spending nearly seven years in custody. The court noted prolonged trial delays and observed that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case strong enough to invoke Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA, which imposes stringent bail restrictions. Drawing parallels to a co-accused who had already been granted bail, the court emphasized the lack of material pointing to Raisuddin’s active role in the alleged offences.

#25 Bombay High Court Grants Bail in ISIS Parbhani Module Case – 13 August 2021

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, accused of being part of ISIS’s ‘Parbhani module’ planning attacks on police offices. Arrested in August 2016 under UAPA and IPC sections, he had spent five years in custody without trial commencement. The court quashed the special court’s earlier denial of bail, noting the trial hadn’t begun and over 150 witnesses were yet to be examined. Bail was granted with conditions including regular reporting to the National Investigation Agency and prohibition on contacting witnesses.

#26 Bombay High Court Upholds Bail Despite Serious ISIS Allegations – 23 February 2021

The Bombay High Court upheld a special NIA court’s decision to grant bail to Areeb Majeed, accused of joining ISIS and planning attacks in India. While it criticized the lower court’s observations about lack of prima facie evidence, it accepted the bail on grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention. Majeed had been in custody since 2014, and the trial involving over 150 witnesses was moving at a sluggish pace. The High Court stressed that his release with strict conditions would not pose a threat to society, affirming his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

#27 Kerala’s First Bail Grant to Alleged ISIS Supporter – 9 July 2020

The NIA court in Kochi granted bail to Sheik Hidayathullah alias Firoz Khan, arrested during investigation into Indian links to the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The court ruled that there was no material evidence showing he had actively associated with or supported ISIS as required under Sections 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This marked the first instance of bail being granted to an alleged ISIS supporter in Kerala, setting a significant precedent.

#28 NIA Court Grants Bail After Bombay High Court Directions – 17 March 2020

Areeb Majeed, arrested in 2014 for allegedly joining ISIS after traveling to Iraq, was granted bail by the special NIA court in Mumbai following directions from the Bombay High Court. Majeed argued that key prosecution witnesses had already been examined and many did not support the National Investigation Agency’s case. With over 200 witnesses remaining and trial delays mounting, the court found prolonged detention unjustified. However, the bail order was stayed until 27 March to allow NIA to appeal.

#29 Delhi Court Grants Bail in Arms Act Case Lacking Terror Evidence – 18 November 2015

Rehmat Pasha, a Hyderabad-based man arrested by Delhi Police’s Special Cell for suspected ISIS links and booked under the Arms Act, was granted bail after the court found no evidence of terror involvement. Despite the recovery of weapons, the court accepted that agencies had not established any anti-national activity connecting the accused to terrorism. Bail was granted on a personal bond of twenty-five thousand rupees and one surety of the same amount.

Cases Where Accused Was Acquitted

#30 Bombay High Court Acquits All Twelve in 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts – 21 July 2025

The Bombay High Court acquitted all twelve individuals who had been convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, overturning a 2015 special MCOCA court verdict that had sentenced five to death and others to life imprisonment. On 11 July 2006, terrorists carried out coordinated bomb blasts inside first-class compartments of Mumbai’s local trains on the Western Railway line at or near Matunga Road, Mahim, Bandra, Khar, Jogeshwari, Borivali, and Mira Road stations. According to official records, 187 people were killed, and 829 others were injured in one of Mumbai’s deadliest terror attacks.

#31 Supreme Court Acquits Akshardham Temple Attack Convicts – 16 May 2014

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Gujarat Police for poor investigation in the 2002 Akshardham temple terror attack case and acquitted all six accused, including three who had been given the death sentence by a lower court. A bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice V. Gopala Gowda stated they were deeply disappointed with how carelessly the police handled investigation in such a serious case involving the country’s security. The attack on the Akshardham temple began on the afternoon of 24 September 2002 and continued until the morning of 25 September, killing 33 people and injuring 85. In July 2006, a special POTA court had sentenced Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri, Abdul Qaiyum Muftisaab Mohmed Bhai, and Achand Khan to death.

#32 Supreme Court Acquits Eleven in 1993 Surat Twin Blasts – 18 July 2014

The Supreme Court acquitted all eleven individuals convicted in the 1993 Surat twin blasts cases after reviewing the evidence. In 1993, two bomb blasts occurred in Surat—one in the Varachha area and one at the railway station. A schoolgirl named Alpa Patel died, and over 30 people were injured in the incidents. In 2008, a special TADA court in Surat had sentenced eleven people, including former Congress minister Mohammad Surti, to jail terms ranging from ten to twenty years. However, upon appellate review, the Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain convictions and declared all eleven accused not guilty, ordering their release.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post From Pro-Pakistan Remarks To Terror Cases: 32 Instances Where Indian Courts Granted Bail Or Relief To Radicals appeared first on The Commune.

A day after the car explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort station that killed nine people, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 11 November 2025, refused to grant bail to an accused facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) (UAPA) in an unrelated case.

The case was heard by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who observed that it was the “best morning to send a message” as they declined to release the accused on bail.
At the start of the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the petitioner, made a pointed remark referencing the previous day’s terror attack in the national capital.

“Not the best morning to argue this case after the events of yesterday,” he said.

In response, Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “Best morning to send a message.”

Inflammatory Material and Online Activity

During the hearing, the Bench noted that “inflammatory material” had been recovered from the accused. However, Dave argued that the documents seized were not incriminating in nature, saying, “Only Islamic literature was recovered.”

Justice Sandeep Mehta, referring to the evidence on record, noted that the accused had created a WhatsApp group on which a flag resembling that of ISIS was displayed.

Dave countered by highlighting the accused’s prolonged incarceration, stating that his client had been in jail for over two years. He also pointed out that no RDX or explosive materials were found in the investigation and that the accused was 70 percent disabled.

Bench Cites Serious Allegations, Sets Deadline for Trial

Despite the defence’s submissions, the Bench held that the charges were serious and that the nature of the materials recovered and the alleged online activity warranted continued custody. The Court therefore declined to grant bail. However, the judges also directed that the trial proceedings be expedited, setting a clear timeframe for conclusion.

The Bench ordered that the trial “should be concluded within two years,” adding that the accused would be permitted to reapply for bail if the delay in trial was not attributable to him.

The hearing took place just a day after the November 10 car blast near Delhi’s Red Fort station, which claimed nine lives and injured several others. The timing of the case and the gravity of recent events appeared to weigh heavily on the proceedings, with the Court’s remarks underscoring a broader message about the judiciary’s stance on terrorism-related offences.

The accused remains in judicial custody as the trial court continues to hear evidence under the UAPA, India’s principal anti-terror legislation.

(Source: Bar and Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Day After Delhi Blast, Supreme Court Denies Bail To UAPA Accused: “Best Morning To Send A Message” appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (16 September 2025) granted interim bail on medical grounds for a period of six weeks to Bhima Koregaon–Elgar Parishad case accused Mahesh Raut, who has been under custody since June 2018 after being arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, over alleged Maoist links.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma passed the order after Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted that Raut is suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, an autoimmune disorder that attacks the bones and muscles.

Although Additional Solicitor General SV Raju was not present, another counsel appearing on behalf of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the plea, contending that the allegations against Raut are serious since he is accused of transferring funds to Maoists.

Singh countered by pointing out that Raut was granted bail on merits by the Bombay High Court on 21 September 2023. However, the High Court had stayed its order for a week to allow the NIA to file an appeal. Subsequently, the NIA approached the Supreme Court, where a bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi admitted the appeal and extended the High Court’s one-week stay until 5 October 2023. Since then, the stay has been extended from time to time.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Sundresh observed that the Court is inclined to grant bail on medical grounds. The bench ordered:

“The applicant is seeking interim bail on medical grounds coupled with the fact that he was actually granted bail, we are inclined to grant medical bail for a period of 6 weeks.”

The plea of co-accused Jyoti Jagtap was also mentioned during the hearing by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, who submitted that the case has been pending for the last six to seven years. The bench said it will take up Jagtap’s case in October.

Jagtap, an activist and member of the cultural organisation Kabir Kala Manch, along with 16 others, was accused by the NIA of being responsible for the caste violence at Bhima Koregaon in Pune. According to the Pune Police (and later the NIA), inflammatory speeches at the Elgar Parishad, an event to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima, triggered violent clashes between Maratha and Dalit groups near the village.

Following this, 16 activists, including Jagtap and Raut, were arrested for allegedly conspiring and planning the violence. They were charged under various provisions of the UAPA, based primarily on letters and emails retrieved from their electronic devices.

In February 2022, a special NIA court rejected Jagtap’s bail application, a decision later upheld by the Bombay High Court in October 2022. While dismissing her plea, a division bench of the High Court remarked that the dialogues in Kabir Kala Manch’s plays ridiculing phrases such as ‘Ram Mandir’, ‘Gomutra’, and ‘Acche Din’, which targeted the democratically elected government, incited hatred and indicated a larger conspiracy.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Bhima Koregaon Accused Mahesh Raut On Medical Grounds For Six Weeks, Co-Accused Bail Plea To Be Head In October appeared first on The Commune.

On 2 September 2025, the Delhi High Court once again denied bail to 2020 Delhi riots accused Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and the seven others involved in the case. However, a compelling narrative, widely echoed in certain sections of the media and activist circles, claims that the indefinite incarceration of these accused in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case is a “travesty of justice”, marked by a “sluggish judicial process” that has denied them bail unfairly.

Nonetheless, a detailed examination of court orders and the chronology of proceedings reveal a starkly different reality: the significant delay in commencing the trial was a calculated strategy employed by the accused themselves, particularly those out on bail, who then turned around to use this self-created delay as a ground for seeking liberty.

This strategy has now been explicitly called out and dismantled by the courts in a series of orders, the most recent being a judgement from the Delhi High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case, which lays bare the tactics used to protract proceedings.

The High Court’s Damning Indictment: Paras 22, 23, and 38

The Delhi High Court, in its recent judgement, left no room for ambiguity. The order sheets of the trial court, upon a bare perusal, clearly indict the defence counsel for the accused.

In Para 22, the Court states, “A bare perusal of the order sheets clearly indicate that the learned Counsel for the accused have taken many adjournments during the course of arguments on charge. The order-sheets show that the learned Counsel for the accused were not ready to argue the matter on charge, thereby protracting the proceedings. The facts and order sheets reveal that the accused themselves have been responsible for delaying the trial at various points in time. The inordinate delay in trial, as alleged by the Appellant herein is not due to the inaction of the Respondent Agency or the Trial Court.”

Para 23 absolves the trial court of any blame, highlighting its efforts to ensure a speedy and structured process – “Material on record shows that at no point of time, the learned Trial Court has or has unnecessarily delayed the arguments on charge. In fact, to facilitate the proceedings properly and in a speedy manner, the learned Trial Court has ensured that the proceedings take place in a structured manner, wherein liberty was given to the accused persons to come to a consensus as to who will argue the case sequentially.”

Perhaps the most revealing observation comes from Para 38, which describes a clear dichotomy between accused who are in prison and those on bail, and a conspiracy of delay: “Material on record indicates that certain accused persons have got bail and some of the accused persons are in prison. Those accused persons who got bail are trying to delay the arguments on charge on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The arguments on charge are being delayed by the accused persons who are out on bail at the cost of those accused persons who are in prison. Despite orders from the Court directing the Counsels for the accused persons to decide amongst themselves as to how and in what order the arguments on charge will be advanced by the accused, there seems to be no consensus among them.”

The court rejected the argument from Umar Khalid’s counsel, Mr. Mehmood Pracha, that they were merely “waiting in queue patiently,” noting that the accused did not advance arguments despite the court’s requests.

The Umar Khalid Bail Saga: A Timeline of Self-Inflicted Delay

The chronology of Umar Khalid’s bail petitions further cements the pattern of deliberate delay:

October 2022: The Delhi High Court denies Khalid bail, finding a prima facie true case against him.

December 2022: Khalid secures a one-week interim bail to attend his sister’s wedding.

April 2023: Instead of immediately appealing the High Court’s order, Khalid waits for four months after his interim bail ends to finally file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court – a full six months after the High Court’s rejection.

The Supreme Court Adjournments: Between April 2023 and February 2024, Khalid’s SLP was listed 14 times. An analysis shows that his own legal team, led by Kapil Sibal, sought adjournments in seven of those 14 hearings. This period was also marked by alleged attempts at “forum shopping,” with lawyers like Prashant Bhushan writing to the Chief Justice to have the case moved to a different bench.

February 2024: Kapil Sibal abruptly withdraws Khalid’s SLP from the Supreme Court, citing “changed circumstances,” and stated he would “try his luck” back in the trial court. This withdrawal coincided with a crucial January 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra that reinforced the strict standards for granting bail under UAPA, making Khalid’s chances in the top court exceedingly slim.

Even former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud endorses this.

Former CJI DY Chandrachud confirms what I had written about Umar Khalid’s bail application in SC. I had written that 7 times, it was Khalid who sought adjournment, ultimately withdrawing application. The cabal later played victim.

Here’s my story https://t.co/ui4YyovyuO pic.twitter.com/eOlWpar5ac

— Nupur J Sharma (@UnSubtleDesi) February 14, 2025

The 2023 Conspiracy to Delay Charge Hearing

The most blatant example of coordinated delay occurred in September 2023. The trial court had fixed dates for day-to-day hearings on arguments for framing charges – the crucial step needed to finally begin the trial.

However, just as the prosecution was set to begin, several accused who were already out on bail, including Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, filed applications demanding a complete status report on the investigation before the arguments could start. They argued, speculatively, that the prosecution might file more supplementary chargesheets to “cover up” gaps.

This application, with no firm legal footing, was swiftly adopted by other accused out on bail, including Meeran Haider, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and others. The Special Public Prosecutor, Amit Prasad, vehemently opposed this, arguing it was a “frivolous application” filed deliberately to “disrupt the entire proceeding” on the very day hearings were to begin. He noted they had waited 40 days to raise this non-issue.

Significantly, at the same time, Umar Khalid and Tahir Hussain (both in jail) were insisting the hearings should begin. This raised a critical question: why were those out on bail working to delay a trial that those still incarcerated were desperate to expedite? The Sessions Court, in its May 2024 order denying Khalid bail, answered this implicitly, noting that the delay was caused by the accused, not the prosecution.

The Legal Conclusion: Delay Cannot be a Self-Created Ground for Bail

The courts have consistently shut down the argument that delay is a valid ground for bail when the accused are the architects of that delay. The High Court in the Tasleem Ahmed case emphatically concluded in Para 28: “it must be emphasised that in the facts of this case, majority delay is attributable to the accused and not the inability on the part of the prosecution to speed up proceedings”.

Further, in Para 39, the court warned against the tactic of deliberately delaying a trial only to then use that delay to demand bail: “The provision..”can easily be circumvented by delaying trial on one hand and pressing bail applications on the other”.

The evidence from the court records presents an undeniable picture: the much-lamented “delay” in the Delhi riots conspiracy trial was not a failure of the system but a deliberate strategy employed by the defence. The courts have not only seen through this strategy but have also unequivocally recorded it in their orders, debunking the popular media narrative that the accused are merely victims of a protracted judicial process.

This article is based on an X thread by Nupur J Sharma.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Court Documents Reveal How Accused In 2020 Delhi Riots Case Engineered Their Own Trial Delay appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by former Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking suspension of his life sentence in connection with a custodial death case dating back to 1990. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to grant bail to Bhatt but directed that the hearing of his criminal appeal be expedited.

“We are not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Our observations made herein above are restricted to bail only and will have no bearing on the appeals of the Appellant and co-accused. The prayers sought by the Appellant is dismissed, however, the hearing of the appeal is directed to be expedited,” Justice Mehta said while pronouncing the order.

Bhatt, who was convicted in 2019 by a sessions court in Jamnagar, was sentenced to life imprisonment along with constable Pravinsinh Zala. Both were held guilty under Sections 302 (murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case pertained to the death of one Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani, who allegedly died as a result of custodial torture following his arrest during a Bharat Bandh in November 1990.

At the time, Bhatt was serving as the Assistant Superintendent of Police in Jamnagar. He and other officers had taken into custody 133 individuals, including Vaishnani, on charges of rioting. Vaishnani, who was held for nine days, died ten days after being released on bail.

An FIR was registered against Bhatt and others, but the trial was delayed for years due to a stay granted by the Gujarat High Court, which was vacated in 2011. Bhatt’s conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in January 2024, with the court finding no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Bhatt, argued in the Supreme Court that there was insufficient evidence to link his client to the custodial death, and that Vaishnani died due to pre-existing medical conditions. He noted the absence of any complaint of police torture made to the victim’s family doctor after his release.

Countering the arguments, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Gujarat government, asserted that the victim’s kidney failure was caused by the alleged physical abuse — including forced sit-ups and crawling — inflicted during custody. Singh also highlighted Bhatt’s criminal history, including a 20-year sentence in an unrelated drug planting case, arguing that there were no exceptional grounds to suspend his current sentence.

Bhatt’s petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record Rajesh Inamdar. The apex court had earlier reserved its verdict on February 28. With the dismissal of his bail plea, Bhatt remains in custody while the criminal appeal is set to be fast-tracked.

(With inputs from Live Law)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Sanjiv Bhatt’s Plea To Suspend Life Sentence In 1990 Custodial Death Case appeared first on The Commune.

In a major security lapse, 75 Bangladeshi nationals arrested in Tamil Nadu over the past year have disappeared after securing bail, raising concerns over the enforcement of immigration laws. These individuals were among approximately 175 foreign nationals apprehended for illegal stay and travel without valid documents.

The disappearance has occurred despite a Supreme Court directive issued on 6 January 2025, which states that foreign nationals facing criminal charges in India cannot be allowed to leave the country. According to standard procedure, such individuals should have been transferred to the special camp in Tiruchy, where foreign nationals involved in crimes in Tamil Nadu are detained until deportation.

Officials explained that even after securing bail, these individuals were supposed to remain in the special camp until deportation, and efforts were being made to obtain the necessary orders to ensure their transfer.

DT Next reported that according to a senior officer, all arrested foreign nationals are initially remanded to Puzhal Central Prison near Chennai. Before they are granted bail, investigating officers are required to submit a request to the State Public Department—through the Q-Branch or the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO)—seeking approval to transfer them to the Tiruchy special camp under the provisions of the Foreigners Act. However, this transfer can only take place if the Public Department issues a government order (GO) for each individual.

Sources indicated that in this case, the necessary GOs were not issued, allowing the foreign prisoners to walk free upon securing bail without any requirement to return.

Intelligence agencies at both the state and central levels estimate that thousands of Bangladeshi nationals are staying illegally in Tamil Nadu, particularly in suburban Chennai and industrial hubs like Tirupur, Coimbatore, Perundurai, and Salem. Many of them reportedly claim to be from West Bengal and use forged Aadhaar and other identity documents to support their claims.

Officials also suspect that a significant number of these individuals could be Rohingya Muslims who fled persecution in Myanmar and entered India via Bangladesh.

Authorities are now under pressure to tighten monitoring and enforcement to prevent further security breaches and unauthorized migration in the state.

(With inputs from DT Next)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post 75 Bangladeshi Nationals Vanish After Bail, Exposing Security Lapses In Dravidian Model Tamil Nadu appeared first on The Commune.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted bail to mafia don Rajendra S. Nikalje, alias Chhota Rajan and suspended his life sentence in the case of the sensational murder of Mumbai hotelier Jaya Shetty in 2001.

On May 30 this year, a Special MCOCA Court had pronounced Rajan and others guilty of the sensational murder and handed down his second sentence of life imprisonment in the past nearly nine years. He had filed an appeal against the life sentence which is now suspended by a division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, till the outcome of the high court plea, and also granted him bail. However, Rajan is unlikely to be released as he is already convicted and serving a life sentence for the 2011 daylight killing of a crime journalist, Jyotirmoy Dey, at Powai, which he is serving in New Delhi’s Tihar Central Jail.

Shetty, the owner of the Golden Crown Hotel in south Mumbai, was shot dead by two gunmen on May 4, 2001, with the hit ordered by Rajan. The mafia don was a bitter rival of the absconder terrorist don Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, triggering a huge sensation in the hospitality and political circles.

After the lengthy trial, the Special MCOCA Court Special Judge A M Patil found Rajan guilty and sentenced him to life in jail, along with other accused, Rahul Pansare, Ajay Mohite, and Pramod Dhonde. Shetty had become a victim in an alleged extortion case and had been provided with police security, which was withdrawn a couple of months before he was targeted and killed.

Incidentally, the Shetty murder case was among the dossier of 71 major offences that were handed over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to the Indonesia government after Rajan was nabbed in the tourist haven of Bali and subsequently deported to India in November 2015.

–IANS

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram and WhatsApp and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Bombay HC Grants Bail To Chhota Rajan In Hotelier Murder Case, Suspends Life Term appeared first on The Commune.

Former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji was granted bail by a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Abhay Oka on Thursday, September 26, after spending over 15 months in jail. The court granted him conditional bail, considering his prolonged detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Balaji’s arrest stemmed from allegations of illegal money transfers and bribery related to job appointments during his tenure as the state’s Transport Minister.

Conditions for Bail

The Supreme Court laid out strict conditions for Senthil Balaji’s release:

• He must provide a ₹25 lakh surety from two individuals.
• He cannot contact or influence the witnesses and victims, directly or indirectly.
• He is required to report to the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, every Monday and Friday between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m.
• He must also appear before investigating officers on the first Saturday of every month regarding three pending criminal cases.
• He must surrender his passport and attend all court hearings.
• He cannot request unnecessary adjournments during the trial.

Legal Journey Leading To Bail

Senthil Balaji’s legal troubles began with allegations of bribery during the recruitment process for various positions in the Tamil Nadu Transport Department in 2014. He was accused of accepting bribes for job placements as the then-Transport Minister, a charge that was later formalized under the Prevention of Bribery Act. Following complaints by victims who had paid for jobs but were not appointed, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against him in 2018, and a charge sheet was submitted.

The case took a major turn in 2023 when the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Senthil Balaji under the PMLA for his involvement in a money laundering case linked to the bribery allegations. The Madras Principal Sessions Court rejected his repeated bail petitions, the Madras High Court, and even the Supreme Court, until the recent judgment.

The Strategy Of Making 2,000 People Accused

A key aspect of Balaji’s legal strategy involved turning the tables on the victims of the bribery scheme. The police, in collaboration with the accused, registered cases against around 2,000 individuals who had allegedly paid bribes to secure jobs in the Transport Department. This action complicated the case significantly. It is alleged that charging the victims of bribery was a deliberate move to muddy the waters, creating a vast pool of accused individuals that would make it almost impossible to conclude the trial in a reasonable timeframe.

These 2,000 individuals, including some who had originally paid bribes hoping to secure jobs, were now listed as co-accused in the case. This added layer of complexity not only delayed the judicial process but also provided grounds for Senthil Balaji’s eventual release on bail.

Speaking in a news debate, BJP TN State Secretary SG Suryah said, “The CM states that the court is the final place where freedom can be grated. But what they forget is that when a bail plea was placed earlier, the same Supreme Court had denied it. But at that time, it was only a few days after arrest and now it is more than 450 days after arrest. Let me take you back to the origins of this case. DMK had placed the allegations forward but the present CM who was the then leader of the opposition had stated that if DMK came to power, he (Senthil Balaji) would be behind bars. In today’s judgement, there are a few things. For example, how the money was deposited, about 1.36 crores was deposited in Senthil Balaji’s account. When this was being investigated, what he said was that 80 lakhs was his MLA salary and he had deposited that. Today, even a small company transfers money (salary) to their employees’ accounts. Now the same is being done for MLAs as well. It is not given in cash. So, things are not adding up there. All this is the reason why he was in jail for 470+ days.”

Responding to the allegations that the arrest was politically motivated, Suryah said, “When the chargesheet was filed, Senthil Balaji was admitted in the hospital stating he is not well. It was also presented in court that he had got the case adjourned 12 times. Due to this, the bail conditions are strict. Especially, the F condition states that adjournment must not be requested for frivolous reasons. The reason for this specific condition is that he has done this previously and this was placed as an argument to deny bail. This itself is a DMK-conspiracy. Let me tell you how. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court (Ramasubramaniam bench), the 2000 people who had given ‘bribe’ were victims. Now in order to save him, all of the victims were named as co-accused. You know how difficult it is to conduct a trial for one single accused, our Indian judicial system is like that. Even the judgement says that it will take about 400 years to cross-examine each of the witnesses and take the case forward. What we must ask is that people give money and request a government job, and they are cheated. How can these people become accused? I don’t think this has happened, at such a scale in any case so far. Because of this conspiracy only he was granted bail. Only 4 of them were accused, Senthil Balaji, his brother, the PA, and one more person. Now all those who gave money became accused. There is no observation in the judgement of any coercion anywhere. It is a political statement; everyone says that even Hemant Soren said that. He is out now, if he can reveal who said that we will take action.”

செந்தில் பாலாஜி வழக்கு ஆதி முதல் அந்தம் வரை ஒரு பார்வை!

பாதிக்கபட்ட 2000 பேரை குற்றவாளிகளாக்கி செந்தில் பாலாஜி வழக்கு நீர்த்துப்போக தமிழக தி.மு.க அரசு செய்த தகிடுதத்தங்கள் என்ன?#புதியதலைமுறை விவாதம்… pic.twitter.com/xWZDZFo6WV

— Dr.SG Suryah (@SuryahSG) September 27, 2024

Bail Granted Amidst Trial Delays

The Supreme Court, while granting bail, observed that the trial could not be concluded within the next three to four years, given the enormous number of accused and witnesses involved. With over 550 witnesses and 2,000 accused, the court highlighted that further detention would violate Balaji’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court also pointed out that while the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail under Section 45(1)(iii), these cannot be used to keep an individual in jail for an indefinite period without trial. Justice Oka, in his judgment, emphasized that Senthil Balaji’s detention for over 15 months without the possibility of a swift trial was in contravention of his fundamental rights.

Case Background 

Senthil Balaji’s political career has seen its share of ups and downs. Starting as a local body representative for DMK, he switched allegiance to AIADMK and served as the Transport Minister from 2011 to 2015. After a fallout within AIADMK and subsequent political shifts, Balaji returned to DMK in 2018 and was appointed Minister for Electricity, Prohibition, and Excise in 2021.

The recruitment scandal erupted in 2014, when the Transport Department, under Balaji’s leadership, advertised for several positions, including drivers, conductors, and engineers. Allegations soon surfaced that bribes were paid for job placements. Multiple complaints were filed, and investigations began, eventually implicating Balaji in a widespread bribery scheme.

Following the change of government in 2021, the ED took up the case under the PMLA, accusing Balaji of laundering money obtained through illegal means. Despite efforts to quash the case, including petitions filed in both the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, Balaji was arrested in June 2023. His detention was extended multiple times, with the Supreme Court finally ruling in September 2024 that further detention without trial was unjust.

With the trial still pending and over 2,000 accused individuals to be cross-examined, the case is set to continue probably for years. However, Senthil Balaji’s ability to secure bail after prolonged detention marks a significant moment in his legal battle, underscoring the complex interplay of legal, political, and administrative maneuvers that have shaped this case.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “2000 People Who Were Victims Were Listed As Co-Accused To Help Senthil Balaji Get Bail”, Says BJP TN Leader Suryah appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil film director Mohan G. Kshatriyan was arrested without prior notice and produced before the Tiruchi court on 24 September 2024. The case pertained to alleged comments on a YouTube channel about panchamirtham prasadam. The police arrested Mohan G after a complaint lodged by Kaviarasu, a Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department manager at the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Samayapuram. The complaint stemmed from controversial remarks made by Mohan in a YouTube interview, where he claimed that the panchamirtham offered as prasadam at the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple in Palani contained contraceptive pills, posing health risks to those who consumed it. Kaviarasu alleged that Mohan’s comments were false and intended to disrupt communal harmony in Tamil Nadu.

இயக்குநர் மோகன் ஜி மீது புகார் கொடுத்தது யார்?; பிணை கிடைத்தது எப்படி? – வழக்கறிஞர் விளக்கம்#MohanG | #PalaniPanchamirtham | #Advocate pic.twitter.com/TM1AwBnbHk

— PuthiyathalaimuraiTV (@PTTVOnlineNews) September 24, 2024

The magistrate released him on his own bail due to the police’s failure to follow the procedure for the arrest. Later, Mohan G, accompanied by his advocate Balu of the PMK, filed a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission in Chennai.

Speaking to reporters, Advocate Balu described the sequence of events. He stated that Mohan was not allowed even a change of clothes and was forcibly picked up from just outside his residence. He also stated that the police did not inform him about the details of the case, the charges, who they were, which police station they were from, etc. He further said, “He was not allowed to eat breakfast, he was not even allowed to pass urine, change his clothes, and was taken to Tiruchi in house clothes. He was threatened and denied basic human rights and was taken to Tiruchi police station. Samayapuram Police then files the case and is produced in court.”

He continued, “The judge rightly questioned what the case was about and when it was filed and if as under section 41, he was given a notice, they stated that the notice was given. The case was filed on the previous day at 3 PM and was given notice at 3 PM in hand, the case was filed in Samayapuram and the next morning in Washermanpet, the police were at Mohan’s residence. They did not even give him time and is a violation of human rights and should not happen to anyone.”

He said, “Mohan is a well-known director and is a concerned citizen. He made those statements with full responsibility. I cannot reveal more details of the case since it is subjudice. The judge released him on his own bail on the basis that the arrest was illegal and it was wrongfully done. The police even disrespected the Supreme Court ruling while doing so. So we have come here to the State Human Rights Commission and filed a complaint. They have promised to take action. I heard another case also has been filed against him. There is no basis for filing cases. You might want to have a look at the video where he has made those comments. He doesn’t even mention the temple name, he very responsibly says it is a rumour and it could have been a political comment but the government has to ensure things are done right. In such a situation, police should not be servants of the government. There are so many important cases that police must take strict action on immediately. There is widespread ganja availability everywhere in TN, there are 20,000 shops in TN where liquor is sold. The number of murders, thefts, and rapes has increased and police have to focus on these.”

Mohan who was also present during this press meeting said, “As Advocate Balu said, yesterday I was not given any basic rights. I was sending my child off in her school van and by the time I entered my residence, 8 people in mufti surrounded me. I could not identify if they were police as they were wearing clothes like lungi, and banian. They asked me to come along with them and told them that I was wearing house clothes and could not accompany them and that I needed to inform my advocate and wife first. They refused to listen and told me they were only taking me to the Royapuram Police station nearby and forced me to get into the van. We did not go to Royapuram police station, we crossed Tambaram where they said we’d go and then we reached Tiruchi. They did not respond to my questions and denied me my rights. Neither I nor the people who were with me knew where we were going. At around 5 PM, they took me to a hospital and then to the court. Adv Balu’s team appeared for me in court and helped me get justice yesterday through court. I have full faith in the judiciary and I am very concerned about society.”

He further said, “The reason I spoke about it was because allegations of adulteration in Tirupati prasadam came out. A Chief Minister of the state spoke about it and that is why I spoke about it. When a CM of that state can talk about such a problem, I thought I could put forth the rumour I heard and if it was true, it could be rectified. The message was conveyed wrongly. I cannot speak much about the case since it is in court. I did not make those comments to create disharmony or unrest in society. I only wanted to bring awareness to the alleged adulteration.”

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Film Director Mohan G Files Complaint With State Human Rights Commission Over Human Rights Violation During Arrest appeared first on The Commune.

On 24 September 2024, during the early hours of the day, Tamil film director Mohan G, known for his pathbreaking films such as Draupadi and Bakasuran, was reportedly arrested by Samayapuram police in Tiruchi district.

The details of the arrest were unclear, and it was assumed that it was because of some comments he made in a YouTube channel interview on a temple prasadam.

It later came to light that police arrested Mohan G after a complaint lodged by Kaviarasu, a manager of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department at the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Samayapuram. The complaint stemmed from controversial remarks made by Mohan in a YouTube interview, where he claimed that the panchamirtham offered as prasadam at the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple in Palani contained contraceptive pills, posing health risks to those who consumed it. Kaviarasu alleged that Mohan’s comments were false and intended to disrupt communal harmony in Tamil Nadu.

The controversy arose after a recent report from the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) highlighted adulteration in the ghee used in the famous Tirupati laddus, which contained foreign fat and alleged to be animal fat such as lard, beef tallow, and fish oil. Mohan’s statement linked this to similar adulteration in the preparation of panchamirtham at Palani, alleging that the concoction could make people impotent. He further claimed that such adulterated items were destroyed, but the news was suppressed. Kaviarasu’s complaint emphasized that Mohan’s comments could incite unrest among the people.

Following his arrest, Mohan was taken to Tiruchi and produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-III. However, the court, presided over by Judge K.R. Balaji, granted him conditional bail, noting that the charges against him were punishable by a jail term of less than three years. The police’s request for remand was denied, and Mohan was released on his own bail, with his counsel citing irregularities in the arrest.

Speaking to reporters his counsel said, “Director Mohan was arrested unlawfully from his residence by Tiruchi Police and was produced before Tiruchi JM3 Court in the evening. Just a few minutes before being produced in court, the Samayapuram Police Station registered a case against him. The case was regarding an interview he gave to the IBC Tamil YouTube channel. Only then did the case come to be known because of this interview. When Mohan G was produced before the magistrate, we pointed out the irregularities in the arrest procedure and requested release under our own bail. The magistrate accepted this and has released him on his own bail.”

He further said, “The case was filed by a manager of the Arulmigu Mariamman Temple in Samayapuram yesterday at 6 PM. They filed documents stating that the arrest warrant was issued as soon as the complaint was filed and that he (Mohan) appeared by himself at 3 PM. Due to these irregularities, the court has released Mohan on his bail. Mohan G was not issued any notice; they received his signature only at court. They literally ‘kidnapped’ him and brought him here. They did not inform the family as to who arrested him and brought him here. Only at 5 PM, after the complaint was filed, was the family informed of it.”

He further added on the question of whether the court stated it was an illegal arrest, “There is no specific reason mentioned for the arrest and there are issues with the timings mentioned and this was the reason why bail was granted. Since Mohan G is from another district, his permanent address is in Chennai, so the court ordered that 2 witnesses be produced for the bail tomorrow or day after. Since the court has ordered so, he cannot be arrested.”

இயக்குநர் மோகன் ஜி மீது புகார் கொடுத்தது யார்?; பிணை கிடைத்தது எப்படி? – வழக்கறிஞர் விளக்கம்#MohanG | #PalaniPanchamirtham | #Advocate pic.twitter.com/TM1AwBnbHk

— PuthiyathalaimuraiTV (@PTTVOnlineNews) September 24, 2024

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Dravidian Model: How TN Police Arrested Film Director Mohan G Without Following Due Process Of Law For A Comment Made In An Interview appeared first on The Commune.