New Delhi, Jul 16 (Reporter) The Supreme Court today granted liberty to former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu to approach either the trial court or the High Court for bail in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice PB Varale passed the order while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed by Babu seeking clarification that the withdrawal of his earlier Special Leave Petition (SLP) did not prevent the High Court from hearing his bail plea. The court also said that Babu could seek revival of the earlier SLP filed in the Supreme Court. In September 2022, the Bombay High Court denied bail to Babu, who was arrested in July 2020 by the NIA over alleged Maoist links in the Bhima Koregaon case. Subsequently, in May 2024, he withdrew his SLP in the Supreme Court, stating his intent to approach the High Court for bail, citing a change in circumstances. On May 2 this year, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court’s order allowing withdrawal did not expressly reserve liberty for him to approach it again, and asked Babu to seek clarification from the top court. During today’s hearing, Advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Babu, submitted that he has spent five years as an undertrial and withdrew his SLP to approach the High Court as several co-accused had been granted bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration. She stated that in comparison to these accused, Babu was “better placed.” The court was informed that the Bombay High Court had granted bail to Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, and Sudha Bharadwaj, while the Supreme Court granted bail to P Varavara Rao on medical grounds, and to Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves, and Arun Ferreira on merits. Opposing the plea, the NIA counsel submitted that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable as a fresh bail petition lay before the NIA court, and the High Court would act as an appellate court under UAPA provisions. He argued, “This is an interim bail couched as an MA.” Justice Mithal suggested that the petitioner approach the trial court, observing, “Your primary ground is, some other accused has been granted bail, that can also be considered by the trial court.” Advocate Roy responded that constitutional courts could grant bail despite the restrictions of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, relying on judgments like K.A. Najeeb, which held that courts can grant bail on grounds of delayed trial and violation of Article 21. Justice Mithal acknowledged that constitutional courts can grant bail but questioned, “Can we direct the High Court to consider a matter which does not lie before it?” He also noted that Babu’s current plea was based on parity with co-accused and not specifically on grounds of delayed trial. Concluding the hearing, the bench ordered, “The miscellaneous application is dismissed, leaving it open to seek remedies either before the trial court or the High Court or seek revival of the SLP...////...