A government lawyer told the Bombay high court on Friday that though prison inmates can talk to their relatives or lawyers on phone, she was not sure if the facility could be granted to activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.
Navlakha, 70, is accused of a serious offence, said lawyer Sangeeta Shinde, representing the Maharashtra government.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and N R Borkar then granted her time till July 12 to make the government's stand in the matter clear.
The HC was hearing a writ petition filed by Navlakha through his counsel Yug Mohit Chaudhary, seeking that he be allowed to make phone calls and video calls from the Taloja prison near Mumbai where he is lodged.
Video call (VC) facility was offered to all inmates during the Covid-19 pandemic, but with in-person meetings resuming in prisons, it has been withdrawn, the lawyer said.
The bench said the state prison rules did not provide for VC facility, and a PIL demanding that video calls from prisons should be allowed was pending before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta.
Advocate Chaudhary then said that in the meantime, Navlakha be permitted to make phone calls.
"They (prison authorities) insist that my (Navlakha's) partner, who is 70 years old and lives in Delhi, make a physical trip to Mumbai every time she needs to speak with me," Chaudhary said.
"All prisons in India except this jail in Maharashtra allow regular phone calls if not VC. Denying me such facility is just cruel," he said.
Government lawyer Shinde said the Taloja prison has a coin-box phone, and both convicts and undertrials are allowed to make calls twice a week.
But when the bench began to pronounce an order directing that Navlakha be allowed to make phone calls, Shinde intervened to say that she was not sure if this would be possible.
"He (Navlakha) is accused of a serious offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act," she said.
The court said the state will have to take a "clear stand" on whether prison rules were applicable to Navlakha or not.
As Shinde said she would need to "take instructions" from the authorities, the court adjourned the hearing to July 12.
The case against Navlakha and others relates to a December 2017 conclave, ‘Elgar Parishad’, held in Pune. The Maharashtra police, who initially probed the case before the National Investigation Agency took over, had alleged that the event was supported by the Maoists.
Meanwhile, a special NIA court in Mumbai has rejected the default bail plea of Shoma Sen and four other accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case and held they made no effort for hearing of the application that was filed way back in 2018.
They have not put forth any explanation for not moving the application for hearing for such a long time and cannot claim benefits of their own wrong, the court added.
NIA judge Rajesh Katariya had, on Tuesday, rejected the default bail plea of Professor Shoma Sen, Sudhir Dhawale, activist Rona Wilson, advocate Surendra Gadling and Mahesh Raut. The detailed order was made available on Friday.
The accused had originally filed the application for default bail in 2018 at a sessions court in Pune when the case was being probed by the local police.
The accused, in their plea, had claimed the 90-day extension granted by the sessions court to file the charge sheet in the case was "illegal", and hence, they were entitled for default bail under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provisions.
Thereafter, in 2019, the accused had filed application seeking the relief of default bail on the ground that the court was did not have the competence to take cognisance against them. This application was rejected by the Pune court and later the Bombay High Court too refused their claim for grant of default bail.
The special NIA court held the ground on which the present applicants (filed in 2018 before Pune court) were seeking default bail was already considered and decided by the high court.
"The applicants have no proprietary right to raise and agitate the same ground in the present application," the judge said.
The court further held the applications were filed way back in 2018 and the record showed no efforts were made by the applicants for the hearing of the present application either before the Pune court or before the NIA court after the matter was transferred to Mumbai.
The applicants have not put forth any explanation for not moving present applications for hearing for such a long time and they cannot take benefits of their own wrong, the court added.
The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches delivered at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 31, 2017, which the police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial.
The Pune police had claimed the conclave was backed by Maoists.
The probe in the case, in which more than a dozen activists and academicians have been named as accused, was later transferred to the NIA.
