The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear on an urgent basis, an application filed by former Delhi University Professor Hany Babu, an accused in the Elgar Parishad Maoist links case, seeking a clarification on whether he could approach the Bombay High Court for bail.
On May 2, the High Court directed Babu to get a clarification from the Supreme Court on whether he had the liberty to approach the High Court for bail after the withdrawal of his bail petition in the Apex Court.
The Counsel for the petitioner today submitted before the Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh that several co-accused in the case were granted bail by the Supreme Court both on merits as well as on the grounds of prolonged custody.
Noting that the High Court’s order was passed on May 2, the top court of the country asked the Counsel why the application was not moved during the regular working days till May 23.
When no urgency was shown by the petitioner then, how could an urgent listing be given during the vacations, noted the Bench.
The Counsel replied that it took time to get the certified copies.
Justice Viswanathan then observed that as a lawyer, he had filed cases even without certified copies in cases of extreme urgency, and the Court allowed listing in such cases.
Refusing to hear the matter during the partial working days, the Apex Court ordered its listing after the re-opening of the Court.
Following the Court orders, Hany Babu withdrew his bail petition from the Apex Court and decided to approach the High Court for the same.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested Hany Babu in July 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with the Elgar Parishad Maoist links case.
In September 2022, the High Court rejected his bail plea.
In May 2024, Hany Babu withdrew the special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court, saying that he wanted to approach the High Court for bail citing change in circumstances.
In May 2025, the High Court observed that the Apex Court’s order allowing the withdrawal did not reserve the accused’s liberty to approach the High Court. Hence, Babu was directed to seek clarification from the Supreme Court.