NIA court holds Stan Swamy is member of banned CPI (Maoist)
“He was carrying out activities further in the objective of the organisation”, the order denying him bail says.
While refusing bail to the 83-year-old Jesuit priest Father Stan Swamy in the Bhima Koregaon violence case, the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court held, “prima facie it can be gathered that Fr Swamy along with other members of the banned organisation hatched a serious conspiracy to create unrest in the entire country and to overpower the Government, politically and by using muscle power”.
Special judge D.E. Kothalikar said, “The material placed on record thus prima facie denote that the applicant (Fr Swamy) was not only the member of banned organisation Communist Party of India (Maoist) but he was carrying out activities further in the objective of the organisation which is nothing but to overthrow the democracy of the nation.”
The court concluded, “There are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation of commission of the offences punishable under chapters IV (punishment for terrorist activities) and VI (terrorist organisations) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against the applicant is prima facie true. Considering the express bar imposed by Section 43D 5 (no person accused with chapters IV and VI shall be released on bail) of the UAPA, the applicant cannot be released on bail.”
The court had refused bail to Fr Swamy on March 22. However, the detailed order was made available on Wednesday.
The court also mentioned, “The material collected during the investigating would further state that the applicant had received Rs.8 lacs through Comrade. Mohan, for furtherance of the CPI (M) activities. The references made in the aforementioned letters to the members being Comrade goes to suggest that there is force in the submissions made by the special public prosecutor that the word Comrade was being used while addressing to the member of the CPI (M).”
Advocate Sharif Shaikh and advocate Kritika Agarwal filed Fr Swamy’s bail on the grounds that the prosecution has failed to establish how he had in any way taken part or committed or incited the commission of any unlawful activity. Hence, Section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of UAPA, cannot be applied.