Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Mahesh Raut for Grandmother’s Last Rites
Introduction: In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has granted interim bail to Mahesh Raut, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, to participate in the last rites ceremonies of his grandmother. The vacation bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti, sanctioned the interim bail from June 26 to July 10, 2024. Raut must adhere to the terms and conditions set forth by the trial court, and he is required to surrender on July 10, 2024.
Background: Mahesh Raut, a tribal rights activist, has been implicated under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, in connection with the Bhima Koregaon caste-based violence of 2018. He was arrested in June 2018 and has since been embroiled in legal proceedings. The Bombay High Court had earlier granted him bail, citing lack of evidence after more than five years of incarceration without trial. However, this bail order was subsequently stayed by the High Court and the stay extended by the Supreme Court.
Court Proceedings: Advocate Aparna Bhat, representing Raut, informed the Supreme Court that despite the bail granted by the Bombay High Court, his release has been hindered pending the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). She underscored the urgency of Raut’s situation, emphasizing that his grandmother passed away in late May and that specific last rites ceremonies needed his presence.
The NIA’s counsel argued that such applications should be directed to the NIA Court, but Bhat contended that since the matter was sub judice in the Supreme Court due to the NIA’s appeal, the Special Court was unlikely to entertain Raut’s application.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Mahesh Raut for attending his grandmother’s last rites exemplifies the balancing act between judicial proceedings and humanitarian considerations. It reflects the Court’s sensitivity towards personal circumstances while ensuring adherence to legal procedures. The case continues to draw attention due to its implications under UAPA and the broader context of civil liberties.
