Kozhikode: The Kozhikode District Sessions Court on Wednesday rejected the bail applications of the two students - Alan Suhaib and Thaha Fazal - arrested for their alleged links with Maoists. However, the court has allowed the defence lawyer to meet the students.
The arrested students have decided to move the High Court against the district court order.
The police had slapped UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) charges on two.
Alan, 19, studies journalism while Thaha, 24, studies Law at the Kannur University.
On Tuesday, the public prosecutor had objected to the duo's bail application at the Kozhikode Sessions Court, saying the police has collected incriminating evidences to establish that the two were members of the banned Maoist outfit.
They said the duo attended Maoist meetings and they were in possession of the pamphlets and books that were used to spread Maoist ideology. "They were members of the Maoist outfit. They maintained secret code to read messages about their operations," the prosecutor informed the court.
Friends and family members of the two, however, had denied police claims and said the youngsters worked for the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
What police sources say
Police sources told Malayala Manorama that they would examine their phone, laptop and pen drive to collect digital evidences against them.
"We have strong evidences against the two. We have convinced the chief minister about the gravity of the situation," sources said.
Police sources said Alan and Thaha never used mobile phones during their travels. This must be a deliberate plan to dodge the police surveillance, they claimed.
The police claimed to have seized a crucial Maoist document from Thaha's house that calls for armed struggle. Police also released photos that showed Alan participating in Maoist meetings.
Counter claim
M K Dinesh, who appeared for the accused, argued that Alan and Thaha were not involved in extremist activities. He said the police were concocting evidences.
He mentioned Kerala High Court's observation that being a Maoist was a not a crime while moving the bail plea. (The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court judgement).
