A special court in Mumbai Tuesday rejected the discharge plea of an alleged CPI (Maoist) operative and directed the framing of charges under the anti-terror Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against eight men. The accused, including founding members of the Mumbai Electric Employees Union, were arrested in 2018 on allegations of raising funds for the banned organisation.

Their lawyers told the court they were falsely implicated because they were members of a trade union working to improve workers’ conditions.

The court rejected the discharge plea of Saidulu Singapanga, observing that the material on record prima facie discloses his involvement in the activities of CPI (Maoist).

“There are certain documents which specifically denote that the applicant is not only a member of banned organisation i.e. CPI(Maoist) but has also actively participated in the activities of the banned organisation,” special judge S R Navander said in the order.

The court referred to material, including a panchnama document in which a co-accused is said to have shown the place where the group’s meetings took place, and witness statements in the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chargesheet of other workers, who are claimed to have been compelled to contribute to the banned outfit.

The ATS arrested one Ajay Dasari at the Kalyan railway station on January 12, 2019, claiming that it had information that he and others were to gather for a ‘secret meeting’, planned “with an intention to pose a threat to the nation’s unity and security”. Dasari was brought to the ATS unit in Juhu and based on his interrogation, the others were arrested. Singapanga was arrested in February, 2018. He was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in 2021.

Referring to the high court bail order, his lawyer Sudeep Pasbola told the court that no material was found to invoke UAPA against Singapanga. He also said that the court had observed that there was no prima facie evidence that the men had done any act to cause disaffection against India. He also referred to the high court order, which stated that the money was collected to meet any contingencies faced by the labourers.

The special court said that there were different parameters while deciding a bail plea and a discharge plea, and it has to consider the entire material on record in the latter.

The lawyer also said that there is no evidence to frame charges against the worker, and that being a member of a trade union and working for the betterment of workers cannot be termed as an illegal activity. It was also submitted that there were no allegations of any conspiracy or participation in a terrorist activity.

The court was also told that there were only allegations regarding membership of a banned group, without any proof. Special Public Prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade argued that there was sufficient proof submitted in the chargesheet. The court found prima facie evidence and directed that charges be framed against all the accused under various sections of the UAPA.

In 2021, a special court discharged an accused charged with forging identification documents, while directing the trial under UAPA.