The Supreme Court on July 16, 2025, granted freedom to former Delhi University professor Hany Babu to seek bail in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He can now either move the trial court or the High Court, or even revive his earlier special leave petition (SLP), which he had withdrawn.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale gave this direction while dismissing a miscellaneous application (MA) filed by Hany Babu. The MA had sought clarification that the withdrawal of his earlier special leave petition should not prevent the High Court from hearing his bail plea.
The bench said, "The miscellaneous application is dismissed, leaving open the option of seeking remedies either in the trial court or the High Court or by reviving the special leave petition."
Read also: CSR Fund Scam: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Exclusion of Retired Kerala HC Judge from FIR
Background of the case
Honey Babu was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020 for alleged Maoist links in the Bhima Koregaon case. The Bombay High Court had earlier denied him bail in September 2022. Later, he filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court but withdrew it in May 2024 due to changed circumstances.
However, on May 2, 2024, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court order allowing the withdrawal of the petition did not clearly grant him the liberty to file the petition again. Hence, the court said Babu will have to seek clarification from the Supreme Court.
Read also: Supreme Court Awaits Centre's Decision on 'Udaipur Files'; Balance in Favour of Objectors
During the hearing, advocate Payoshi Roy, appearing for Babu, argued that he has been in jail as an undertrial prisoner for five years and has withdrawn his special leave petition as other co-accused have been granted bail on the ground of long incarceration.
"Compared to other accused, the petitioner is in a better position," Roy said.
Roy cited cases of bail granted by the high court or the Supreme Court to Rona Wilson, Sudhir Dhawale, Sudha Bharadwaj and others like Varavara Rao, Shoma Sen, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira.
However, the NIA counsel opposed the application, saying a fresh bail plea should be filed in the NIA court and not through a miscellaneous application. He argued:
"This is an interim bail presented as an M.A."
Justice Mithal also pointed out that if the ground for bail is the same as that of other accused, the trial court can consider it.
Roy, citing the K.A. Najeeb case, responded that trial courts are limited under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and only constitutional courts can grant bail on grounds such as delay in trial.
Read also: Supreme Court Refers Power of Attorney Registration Matter to Larger Bench: Question on
"Despite the restrictions of the UAPA, courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction can grant bail and ignore Section 43D(5)," argued Roy.
Justice Mittal agreed to the constitutional powers, but raised the question whether the Supreme Court can direct the High Court to consider a case that is not pending before it.
Since no further arguments were raised, the bench dismissed the MA and clarified that the petitioner has complete freedom to approach appropriate forums.
Case Title: Hany Babu vs National Investigation Agency & Others
Case Number: MA 1208/2025, Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 1596/2024