The National Investigation Agency (NIA) which arrested him a day earlier than he was cost-sheeted, opposed his bail purposes claiming that the investigation “established’’ him to be a “member of CPI (Maoist) and actively involved in its activities’’ and also “in contact with some of the conspirators — Sudhir Dhavale, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Arun Ferrriera, Vernon Gonsalves, Hany Babu, Shoma Sen, MAhest Raut, Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navalakha and Anand Teltumbde, etc for furtherance of its activities.’’ In its March 22 order, the special NIA court Judge D E Kothalikar, rejecting his plea for bail on merit, said he is accused of belonging to a “terrorist organisation” and conspiring to overpower the federal government, politically and through the use of muscle energy. The courtroom had said the “collective interest of the community” would outweigh the right of private liberty and Swamy’s previous age or alleged illness wouldn’t go in his favour.
Judge Kothalikar said from paperwork produced by NIA, it could possibly be gathered that Swamy and different members of the banned CPI (Maoist) had hatched a conspiracy to gasoline unrest and overpower the federal government. Swamy was finishing up actions to additional the goals of the organisation which was nothing however to overthrow “the democracy of the nation”, the courtroom held.
The courtroom order additionally said, “…if seriousness of allegations made against the applicant are considered in proper perspective…there will be no hesitation to conclude that collective interest of the community would outweigh the right of personal liberty of the applicant and as such the old age and or alleged sickness, of the applicant would not go in his favour,” the courtroom said.
Fr Swamy’s rivalry was that mere allegations of being a Maoist doesn’t name for continued custody. He had additionally pleaded that he was not current in Pune on the time of the Elgar Parishad on December 31, 2017, neither was he named within the January 8, 2018 FIR filed by the Pune police. The important thrust of his defence was on “admissibility of the documents”, that NIA was counting on “hearsay” proof to join him. His case was that nothing was seized from him and he was “not involved in any anti-national activitiy’’.
The NIA also pointed to “exchange” of round 140 emails between Fr Swamy and co-accused, and the truth that Swamy, co-accused Sudha Bhardwaj and different members of the Persecuted Political Prisoners Solidarity Committee (PPSC) had condemned the conviction of professor G N Saibaba and others underneath UAPA for Maoist hyperlinks.
His case was that the letters cited by the prosecution “do not establish that they were actually sent’’ and their authorship was uncertain. Swamy was actively helping tribals and ‘moolvasis’, had founded an organisation named Bagaicha, and had written and researched extensively on issues of caste, religion, land rights and people’s struggles, said his petitions.
His plea was that the role of PPSC is to provide legal aid and that is no offence. But the NIA claimed he was a “staunch supporter of the activities of organisations like Visthapan Virodhi Jan Vikas Andolan (VVJVA)…frontal organisation of CPI (Maoist).”
The NIA argued, and the trial courtroom agreed, that such arguments on proof could possibly be thought-about throughout trial and had therefore denied him bail in March, on benefit.