A Mumbai Sessions Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) student accused of raising slogans seeking the release of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid during an event organised on the institute’s campus to commemorate former Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba.
Additional Sessions Judge V.B. Bohra, while rejecting the pre-arrest bail application filed by Abhirup Paul, observed that the Supreme Court had already declined bail to Imam and Khalid in the UAPA case and held that the accused students were expected to respect the “law of the land”.
Paul, along with other students, was booked by the Mumbai Police in an FIR registered in October 2025 in connection with the event. The prosecution alleged that the students paid homage to Saibaba, recited his poems and raised slogans demanding the release of Imam and Khalid, both of whom are facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The court, however, granted anticipatory bail to another accused, Nikita Dsouza.
Before the court, the students contended that since Saibaba had ultimately been acquitted in the UAPA case, commemorating him could not constitute an offence. It was also argued that merely raising slogans such as “Sharjeel ko riha karo, Umar ko riha karo” would not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence.
The court accepted that paying homage to Saibaba, who had been acquitted, could not independently be characterised as an unlawful act. However, it distinguished the commemoration from the alleged slogans demanding the release of Imam and Khalid.
According to the court, the alleged slogans were not raised in the course of a public agitation or procession and, therefore, could not be viewed merely as part of a broader protest activity. The court noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the bail pleas of Imam and Khalid and held that the students ought to have borne this judicial determination in mind.
The court also considered material allegedly recovered during the investigation. It noted the prosecution’s claim that certain books authored by individuals associated with the CPI (Maoist) ideology had been downloaded onto the electronic devices of Paul and another accused, Kamakhya. Although the books were not themselves prohibited publications, the court observed that the investigating agency had alleged that the accused had not merely downloaded them but had also visited various locations as part of purported field work.
The court clarified that downloading books published by a Maoist organisation, by itself, would not constitute a criminal offence. However, it held that the circumstances in which the material was allegedly downloaded, coupled with the accused persons’ alleged activities and the slogans seeking the release of persons facing UAPA proceedings, warranted further investigation into their intentions.
The court further took note of the alleged use of the expression “Rest in Power (1967-Forever)” during the tribute to Saibaba. While observing that the expression itself did not amount to a criminal offence, the court held that the alleged conduct, when considered alongside the other material collected during investigation, raised questions concerning the accused persons’ involvement.
On the issue of delay in criminal proceedings, the court also referred to the students’ submissions concerning Saibaba’s prolonged incarceration. It observed that several factors, including the heavy pendency of cases and the judge-to-population ratio, contribute to delays in criminal trials and that established judicial procedures must be followed for completion of such proceedings.
Against this backdrop, Justice Bohra held that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the accused persons’ intentions behind downloading the material, undertaking the alleged field activities and raising slogans demanding the release of Imam and Khalid.
The court further observed that interrogation was required to determine whether the accused had any connection with a banned organisation allegedly acting against the interests of India.
Finding custodial interrogation necessary at the present stage of investigation, the court dismissed Paul’s anticipatory bail application.
Advocate Vijay Hiremath appeared for the students, while Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray represented the State.
Case Title: Abhirup Paul v. State of Maharashtra
The post Mumbai Sessions Court denies anticipatory bail to TISS student over slogans seeking release of Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid appeared first on India Legal.