When her request for provisional bail came up, a Supreme Court bench headed by Judge UU Lalit pointed out that she already had a declaration of bail pending in the Bombay High Court, so she was told to withdraw her request for provisional bail or the they would dismiss.
Arnab Goswami also had a release on bail pending in the Alibaug session court when he approached the Supreme Court, but he took a very different approach to his case, investigating the case against him and releasing him.
Nundy says it can be seen that Bharadwaj’s case is being investigated by the NIA and is under the draconian UAPA anti-terrorism law, while Goswami’s was an incitement to suicide under the IPC. However, she says:
Thus, he concludes by stating that if the Supreme Court is serious about protecting the personal liberty of all citizens, and not just those with favorable access and expensive lawyers like Goswami, then it will also have to investigate cases like Sudha’s. Bharadwaj, where there is no recovered evidence of your possession, and examine the documents and apply your mind in those cases as well, the same way you did with Goswami.
.
