Sibal: I ask myself- an academician in an institution, what can he do to overthrow the country or state? Before the High Court, they relied on this speech-"prima facie delivered inflammatory speech to instigate communal riots"- how does the high court say that? it says the whatsapp groups, what is my role? there are allegations of inflammatory speech against co-accused who are out on bail.

all this takes care of the fact that I am entitled to parity and only thing relied upon is the speech which nobody calls inflammatory. I am also entitled to bail on changed circumstances.

I withdrew second SLP 14.2.24 and subsequent bail application filed on changed circumstances-

1. parity with co-accused which could not have been claimed when HC denied first bail application and then came SC order for clarification.

2. least period of incarceration- 3 years went by

3. SC pronounced 3 judgments- Vernan Gonsalves[bhima koregaon] in which court said: "In none of the materials which have been referred to by the prosecution, the acts specified to in sub-clause (a) of Section 15(1) of the 1967 Act can be attributed to the appellants. Nor there is any allegation against them which would attract subclause (c) of Section 15(1) of the said statute. As regards the acts specified in Section 15(1) (b) thereof, some of the literature alleged to have been recovered from the appellants, by themselves give hint of propagation of such activities. But there is nothing against the appellants to prima facie establish that they had indulged in the activities which would constitute overawing any public functionary by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts by the appellants to do so. Neither there is allegation against them of causing death of any public functionary or attempt to cause death of such functionary. Mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act. Thus, prima facie, in our opinion, we cannot reasonably come to a finding that any case against the appellants under Section 15(1) (b) of 1967 Act can be held to be true"