A sessions court in Mumbai on August 7 denied anticipatory bail to a student, who in an event held at TISS campus, for paying homage to GN Saibaba, raised slogans for freeing Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, who are facing trial in a UAPA case.

Additional Sessions Judge VB Bohra said that the Supreme Court had denied bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid and thus students must respect the law of the land.

The Court refused to grant bail to Abhirup Paul (32), who along with several other students was named in an FIR lodged in October 2025 by the Mumbai Police for participating in the event to pay homage to Saibaba and also for reading out his poems and sloganeering to free Sharjeel and Umar.

However, it granted anticipatory bail to one Nikita Dsouza.

While the students argued that Saibaba was acquitted from the UAPA case, there was also no offence made out only to say "Sharjeel ko riha karo, Umar ko riha karo"

The judge however opined, "No doubt, GN Saibaba came to be acquitted of charges leveled against him and therefore, act of paying homage to him by accused persons cannot be termed as illegal. However, the act of accused persons appeared to be not limited to pay him homage. They even allegedly raised slogans in the nature of releasing Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from jail, who are facing trial for an offence under UAPA i.e. unlawful activities against the Nation. It was not the platform for raising such slogans. In other words, such slogans were not made in a public agitation or procession. The Apex Court had been pleased to reject bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. Being students, it was expected from accused persons to respect the Law of Land."

As regards Saibaba, the court noted the nature of charges against him, especially the allegations that he was said to be active member of the Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF) of CPI (Maoist), which was banned by the Government of India. It noted the contention of the students that Saibaba was kept in jail for 10 years despite him being a physically disabled person.

"The tenor of the submissions made by accused shows that, they are questioning or blaming the procedure followed by the Criminal Court. Certain procedure is to be followed for completing the criminal trial. Apart from various reasons including population – Judge ratio, heavy pendency before the Courts of Law, is one of the reason for delay in completing a criminal trial," the judge clarified.

Further, the court took objection to the students raising slogans like "Rest in Power (1967 to Forever)" while paying homage to Saibaba. The judge expressed that usually one while paying homage to dead persons says "Rest In Peace."

"Generally, while paying homage to deceased person, words 'Rest in Peace' are mentioned or said or written. However, accused persons have allegedly used words 'Rest in Power (1967- Forever).' By doing this, that too in the premises of college or institute and without permission of its administration, though, accused have not committed criminal offence but their act coupled with the fact of material found with accused Abhirup and Kamakhya certainly raises doubt about their, more particularly accused Abhirup and Kamakhya, conduct, which suggested involvement in the alleged crime," the judge said

The judge noted the case of the prosecution that it discovered certain books written by CPI (Maoist) authors, which were downloaded in Abhirup and Kamakhya's phones/laptops. Though there books were not banned by the Government of India, the judge noted, the same spoke about "division of Country."

"No doubt, mere downloading the books published by the Maoist Organization would not amount to an offence. However, in the present case during the course of investigation it is revealed that, the applicants, not only downloaded the books but even attended several places as field work. Further, the books though not banned by the Government but reportedly instigating or aiding the division of India. In this background, custodial interrogation of the applicants is very much necessary and expedient to ascertain their intentions in downloading those books coupled with their intention in raising slogans for release of two persons, who are facing trial under UAPA and to whom the bail was denied by the Supreme Court of India," the judge observed.

Judge Bohra thus held that it was imperative for interrogating the applicants to ascertain any link with the banned organization acting against the interest of India.

With these observations, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail plea.

Appearance:

Advocate Vijay Hiremath appeared for the Students.

Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray represented State.

Case Title: Abhirup Paul vs State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order