Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection to TISS Student Accused of Raising Pro-Maoist Slogans at G. N. Saibaba Commemoration

Justice Prafulla Khubhalkar holds that slogan-raising at a commemoration and downloading books supporting Maoist ideology do not prima facie constitute an offence, granting interim protection to the applicant against arrest.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has granted interim protection from arrest to Kamakhya Prasad Das, a student arraigned as accused no. 2 in Crime No. 464 of 2026 registered at Trombay Police Station, Brihanmumbai. The FIR, dated 13 October 2025, relates to an event held on 12 October 2025 at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to mark the first death anniversary of G. N. Saibaba, a member of the Revolutionary Democratic Front of the banned CPI (Maoist), who died on 12 October 2024. Justice Prafulla S. Khubhalkar, sitting singly in the criminal appellate jurisdiction, found that participation in the commemoration, slogan-raising, and downloading books supporting Maoist ideology do not prima facie amount to any offence, and that custodial interrogation need not be insisted upon given that the applicant's mobile phone and laptop had already been seized.

The FIR and the Allegations

The complaint, as recorded in the FIR, alleges that on 12 October 2025, Das and several other accused persons — all students of TISS — participated in a commemoration event for G. N. Saibaba. The complainant alleged that during the event, the group raised certain slogans reflecting support for Maoist activity. It was further alleged that in paying homage to the deceased, the group used the words “rest in power Prof. G. N. Saibaba (1967-forever).”

On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was registered against nine persons. Das was named accused no. 2. The offences charged are under Sections 189(2), 190, 192, 196, 197, and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 37(1)(a), 37(3), and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

The State additionally alleged that during investigation, the mobile phone and laptop of Das were seized and found to contain books in PDF format published by members of the Indian Communist Party (Maoist). The State also alleged that certain data had been deleted from the mobile phone, making custodial interrogation necessary to recover and ascertain that data. A further allegation was that even after the Sessions Court granted interim protection in October 2025, Das had allegedly threatened a police officer, one Tanaji Rode, about removing stars from his uniform.

Proceedings Before the Sessions Court

After the FIR was registered, Das approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. On 18 October 2025, the Sessions Court granted interim protection to Das and several other accused persons. That interim protection remained in force from 18 October 2025 until 7 August 2026.

The Sessions Court eventually rejected the anticipatory bail applications of accused nos. 2 and 3, while granting anticipatory bail to the remaining accused. Accused no. 3 was subsequently arrested after the rejection of his application. The Sessions Court, in paragraphs 16 and 20 of its order, had itself observed that the use of the words “rest in power” and the mere downloading of books published by a Maoist organisation would not amount to an offence. Despite this, it held that custody was necessary to ascertain the intention behind the downloads.

Das thereafter filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2294 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Contentions of the Parties

Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for Das along with Advocates Vijay Hiremath and Rishika Agarwal, submitted that the applicant's only role was participation in the commemoration as a member of the gathering and being part of the group that raised slogans. He urged that the mobile phone and laptop had already been seized during investigation, making custodial interrogation unnecessary given the nature of the allegations. He relied on the fact that interim protection had been operating for nearly ten months without any disruption to the investigation.

Special PP and GP Shishir Hiray, appearing for the State along with APP Prasanna P. Malshe and Advocates Shubham Joshi and Sanjay Kakne, opposed the application. He pointed to the specific allegations in the FIR that Das had raised slogans demanding the release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam from jail. He pressed the argument that the deleted data on the seized mobile phone could only be ascertained through custodial interrogation, and that the downloaded Maoist literature made it necessary to probe Das's ideological mindset. He also placed before the court the allegation that Das had threatened police officer Tanaji Rode during the period of interim protection.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Khubhalkar identified the core of the prosecution's case against Das as two-fold: his participation in the commemoration and being part of the group that raised slogans, and the downloading of books supporting Maoist ideology on his phone. Considering the material on record at this stage, the court held that these acts do not prima facie constitute any offence.

The court drew attention to the Sessions Court's own concurrent finding that the use of the phrase “rest in power” and the mere downloading of Maoist literature would not amount to an offence. The Sessions Court had nonetheless required custody to examine intent. Justice Khubhalkar declined to follow that reasoning, pointing to the fact that the mobile phone and laptop had already been in the possession of the investigating agency. Once the devices were seized, the court held, there was no basis to insist on custodial interrogation to examine the data within them.

The court also took note of the period during which interim protection had already operated without objection from the investigation's standpoint: from 18 October 2025 to 7 August 2026, Das had been protected, which further weighed against insisting on custody at this stage.

Conditions Attached to the Interim Protection

The High Court made clear that interim protection would be conditional rather than absolute. Das was directed to join the investigation by attending Trombay Police Station on Wednesday, 19 August 2026, and on Monday, 24 August 2026, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and as and when called upon by the investigating agency thereafter. He was also directed to disclose to the investigating agency all details regarding any literature in his possession, if demanded.

Subject to compliance with these conditions, Das shall not be arrested until the next date of hearing.

Order

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2294 of 2026 was taken up on 14 August 2026. Justice Prafulla S. Khubhalkar granted Das interim protection from arrest, subject to his attending the police station on 19 August and 24 August 2026 and disclosing relevant literature to the investigating agency on demand. The matter was listed for further consideration on 31 August 2026.