Mumbai Court: Abhirup Paul Bail Granted, No Maoist Links Found

• A Mumbai court granted bail to TISS student Abhirup Ashim Paul, who was arrested for allegedly raising slogans supporting jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
• Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dattatray Shankarrao Khedekar found no evidence linking Paul to any Maoist or banned organization, citing only suspicion.
• The court ruled that possessing soft copies of Maoist books and raising campus slogans does not constitute anti-national activity or prove Maoist affiliation.
• The judge observed that continued detention of Paul, a young offender, based on mere suspicion would be unjust and detrimental to his career.
• The case originated from an FIR filed by the TISS Registrar following an unauthorized campus event on October 12, 2025.

The court explicitly stated that merely possessing soft copies of Maoist literature or raising campus slogans in support of jailed activists does not constitute anti-national activity, nor can it be used to infer an individual's affiliation with Maoist ideology.

A Mumbai court has granted bail to Abhirup Ashim Paul, a student enrolled at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), who had been arrested following allegations of raising slogans in support of jailed activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The decision, handed down in the case of Abhirup Paul v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., marks a significant development for the TISS student, who had undergone a period of custodial interrogation.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Dattatray Shankarrao Khedekar, presiding over the matter, determined that Paul had already spent a sufficient duration in custody. Crucially, the court found no substantive evidence to establish any connection between Paul and a Maoist organization or any other banned group, directly addressing the allegations of Abhirup Paul Maoist links.

In a pivotal observation, the court emphasized that, beyond mere suspicion, there was no material to substantiate claims linking Paul's activities with a Maoist mindset, actions against the nation, or association with banned organizations in India. The Dattatray Shankarrao Khedekar bail ruling clarified that the presence of soft copies of Maoist books and the act of raising campus slogans in solidarity with jailed activists do not, in themselves, amount to anti-national activity.

The court explicitly stated that merely possessing soft copies of Maoist literature or raising campus slogans in support of jailed activists does not constitute anti-national activity, nor can it be used to infer an individual's affiliation with Maoist ideology. The ruling underscored that an inference of being a Maoist cannot be drawn simply from the discovery of PDF books on Maoism. The judge further noted that continuing to detain Paul, identified as a young offender, based solely on suspicion would be unjust and could severely impede his career prospects.

The legal proceedings against Paul originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the TISS Registrar. This complaint stemmed from an unauthorized event held on the institute's campus on October 12, 2025, where students had gathered to commemorate the death anniversary of a late individual.

This Mumbai court bail Abhirup Paul decision carries significant weight for cases involving campus activism and freedom of expression. It reinforces the principle that concrete evidence, rather than speculative suspicion, is required to establish links to banned organizations or to prove anti-national activity in India, particularly when allegations involve the possession of Maoist books or the raising of TISS student slogans for Umar Khalid bail.

This ruling clarifies that mere possession of literature (e.g., Maoist books) or raising slogans in support of activists does not, prima facie, establish a link to banned organizations or constitute anti-national activity. Lawyers defending clients accused under similar circumstances can cite this precedent to argue against detention based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence, particularly in cases involving campus activism or expression of dissent.

Source: Original reporting via source article