order high court 23.12.2015

22
Bombay High Court  1 ba785.15  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.785/2015 (Dr. Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba s/o G. Satyanarayana Murthy..vs..State of Maharashtra, through PSO P. S. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. S. P. Gadling, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S. G. Aney, Advocate General with Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Government Pleader and Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P.for State Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for intervenor. Mr. A. S. Kilor, Advocate for intervenor. CORAM :  A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE     :     DECEMBER 23, 2015. 1. Following is the prayer clause (i) in this bail application: “(i) Release applicant on bail in crime no.3017/2013 for offence punishable under 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (Amendment 2008), registered with Police Station Aheri, Distt. Gadchiroli on such terms and conditions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Indisputably, as stated by applicant, this is the second bail application, after rejection of the first bail application on merits as well as on the health grounds. ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Upload: cjarindia

Post on 12-Jan-2017

247 views

Category:

Law


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  1 ba785.15  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.785/2015(Dr. Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba s/o G. Satyanarayana Murthy..vs..State of

Maharashtra, through PSO P. S. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli and anr.)__________________________________________________________________________Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. S. P. Gadling, Advocate for applicant.Mr. S. G. Aney, Advocate General with Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Government Pleader and Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P.for StateMr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for intervenor.Mr. A. S. Kilor, Advocate for intervenor.

CORAM :  A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.DATE     :      DECEMBER 23, 2015.

1. Following   is   the   prayer   clause   (i)   in   this   bail

application:

“(i) Release   applicant   on   bail   in   crime

no.3017/2013 for offence punishable under 13, 18, 20, 38

and   39   of   the   Unlawful   Activities   Prevention   Act

(Amendment 2008), registered with Police Station Aheri,

Distt. Gadchiroli on such terms and conditions, which this

Hon'ble   Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the

circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Indisputably,   as   stated   by   applicant,   this   is   the

second   bail   application,   after   rejection   of   the   first   bail

application   on   merits   as   well   as   on   the   health   grounds.

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 2: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  2 ba785.15  

Learned   counsel   for   the   applicant,   however,   raised   an

additional  ground about  his  prayer   for  grant  of  bail   on   the

ground of parity in relation to the other accused in the same

crime   by   name   Mahesh   Tirki,   Pandu   Narote,   Vijay   Tirki,

Prashant Rahi and Hem Mishra.   The earlier Bail Application

No.485/2014 was heard at length and decided by the learned

Single  Judge of   this  court  by  detailed order  on 25.08.2014.

Insofar  as   the   findings  on merits  of   the  bail  application are

concerned, it would be appropriate to quote the same.  Hence, I

quote para 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, which read thus:

“9. However,       before       dealing       with       the

evidence       collected   against   the   applicant,   it   would   be

necessary   for   me   to   consider   as   to   whether   the

Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF) could be called as

frontal   organization   of   the   CPI   (Maoist).     It   is   not   in

dispute that this organization   has   not   been   specifically

banned   by   the   Central Government.  What is banned at

serial No.34 is  the CPI (Maoist).  The relevant   entry   in

the     Gazette     of     India     of     the     notification     dated

22/6/2009 reads as under.:

“TERRORIST organizations

34. Communist Party of India (Maoist) all its formations

and front organizations”.

10. Learned   Public   Prosecutor   for   the   State   has

submitted that the documents   collected   from  the   hard­

disks   of the  applicant  would sufficiently    establish,     at

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 3: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  3 ba785.15  

this       stage,       the      fact       that     RDF      is      a   frontal

organization of the banned organization CPI (Maoist) as it

follows the same ideology and directs  its activities towards

rendering of support to the said banned organization with

an   intention   to   further   activities   of   the   banned

organization.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

applicant does not agree.

11. Upon   perusal   of   various   documents   filed

in     the charge­sheet, I find that there is substance in the

said submission of the learned     Public     Prosecutor,     at

least   at   this   stage.   There   are various letters retrieved

from the hard­disks of the computer of the applicant, which

show that these letters were initially signed by him under

proxy name as “Prakash” and later on some letters were

signed in his present name i.e. “Saibaba”.     These letters

indicate   amongst   others       that   the   applicant       is

complaining     about     his     having   not     been     assigned

proper role in his organization.     They further show that

the   applicant   is   also   complaining   about   his   being

discriminated by not giving him a job of interaction with

the   underground   activists   of   the   banned   organization.

There is also a press release dated 23/4/2012 of the First

All   India   Conference   of   Revolutionary   Democratic   Front

held on 22/4/2012 and from this press release, it can be

seen that all the activists of RDF have been directed towards

lending support to the banned organization CPI (Maoist),

prima facie with an intention to further its activities.  There

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 4: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  4 ba785.15  

is   further   material   which   shows   that   RDF   has   been

protesting against the arrest  of some Maoist   leaders and

demanding their immediate release and also sharing same

ideology as the said banned organization.  This material, at

this stage, prima facie show that the RDF is nothing but a

front organization of the said banned organization.

12. …..

13. With due respect, I must say, at this stage, that

from the material   collected   against     the     applicant   by

the   prosecution,  one  can very well see that the activities

of the applicant, prima facie, do not stop   at    expressing

an       agreement      with       the       ideological       thoughts

advocated by the banned organization.   He is not only a

member of the Revolutionary Democratic Front, which has

been prima facie  found to be  frontal organization of the

banned organization CPI (Maoist), but also one who has

been   complaining   about   not   giving   him   an   active   role

commensurate   with   his   capibility   and   also   being

discriminated   in  the organization     by      denying     him

access     to     an     interaction     with     the   underground

activists     of     the     banned     organization.     There     are

also documents   prima   facie   showing   professing   and

supporting     violent methods   of the banned organization

by the  applicant.   It cannot  be forgotten   that   not   only

the   offence   under   Section   20   is   registered against

the applicant, but Section 38 and Section 39 offences are

also applied   against   him.      Section   38   offence   is

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 5: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  5 ba785.15  

for      association      with      a   terrorist  organization with

intention   to   further   it's  activities.    Section  39  relates   to

giving   support   with   intent   to   further   the   activity   of   a

terrorist  organization.    Aforestated  material,       in      my

opinion,   at   this   stage, would be prima facie sufficient to

find that the allegations that have been made against the

applicant are true and, therefore,  in my opinion, at this

stage, the applicant would not be entitled to be released on

bail on these grounds.

14. Section 43­D(5) of  the UAP Act clearly places

an embargo upon discretion of the   Court in granting bail

to the accused persons, who     have     been     charged     for

the       offences       punishable       under       various   sections

contained in Chapters IV and VI of the UAP Act.   Proviso to

this Section lays down, inter alia, that the accused persons

shall not be released on bail if, upon perusal of the case

diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure,  the Court is of the opinion that there

are  reasonable  grounds   for  believing   that   the accusation

against such person is prima facie true.  In my opinion, the

prohibition as contained in Section 43­B(5), at this stage of

the case, would be applicable and, therefore, the applicant

would not be entitled to be released on bail.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant made submissions

on merits  of  the bail  application and tried to show that  the

evidence considered by this Court as above was insufficient to

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 6: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  6 ba785.15  

continue the detention of the applicant in jail.  However, upon

fresh   look   of   the   entire   evidence   placed   before   me   by   the

prosecution in this bail application and considering the same in

juxtaposition, I find that I have absolutely no reason to diverge

from  the  view  taken  by  or   finding   recorded  by   the   learned

Single Judge in the aforesaid bail application.  In fact, there is

no reason for me to do so.  Therefore, the submission  made on

merits of the matter of bail will have to be rejected, which I do.

4. The next submission made by Mr. Gadling, learned

counsel   for   the   applicant,   is   about   the   ground   of   parity   in

respect of the other accused persons, who have been released

on bail  either by the trial Judge or by this Court.    With the

assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone

through all these orders in relation to the accused persons, who

have   been   released   on   bail.     The   coordinate   Bench   or   the

learned  Single   Judge  of   this  Court   in   those  cases   found  no

prima   facie   case   against   those   accused   persons   and   it   is

pursuant to the said finding, they were released on bail but that

is not the case at hand.  As stated earlier, there is a prima facie

case against the applicant based on the strong evidence and in

fact   the   applicant   who   is   an   intellectual   has   used   his

intelligentsia   for   anti   national   activities   for   which   there   is

strong evidence against him as discussed and, therefore, case of

the applicant cannot be considered on the ground of parity.  I,

therefore, reject the submission made by learned counsel  for

the applicant, on the ground of parity.

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 7: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  7 ba785.15  

5. The next ground for claiming the grant of bail raised

by the learned counsel for the applicant is the most important

ground and a large controversy has come to the fore in that

context.   After rejection of the bail application by order dated

25.08.2014 by this Court, it does not appear that the said order

was challenged before the apex Court on any ground.   As a

matter of fact, this Court had, in paragraph 15 and 16 of the

order which are quoted hereunder, while dealing with the issue

regarding prayer for bail on medical grounds, observed thus:

“15. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted

that   the   applicant   is   90%   handicapped   person,   who

requires specific treatment to   the   ailments   suffered   by

him   and   it   may   not   be   possible to administer him

the treatment, if he is detained in jail.   

16. From the reply of  the prosecution,  I   find that

the applicant is being properly treated in jail and all the

modern   medical   facilities   are   being   extended   to   him   in

Nagpur  Central  Jail.    There   is  also  report  of   the doctor

annexed to the reply of the prosecution and upon perusal of

the   same,   I   am   satisfied   that     at   this   stage,   proper

treatment is being given to the applicant and, therefore, on

this count alone, there is no reason for me to consider the

release of the applicant on bail.”

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 8: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  8 ba785.15  

6. The   coordinate   Bench   of   this   Court,   while

considering   his   plea   on   medical   grounds   noted   that   the

applicant   is   90%   handicap   person   from   his   childhood   and

recorded a categorical finding about the proper treatment and

medical facilities provided to the applicant after arrest.   It is

true   that   this   Court   can   still   consider   the   grant   of   bail   on

medical  grounds since the said order  was passed  in August,

2014 but the applicant could have approached this Court on

medical   grounds  and  needless   to   say   that   this  Court  would

have certainly considered the request if justified.

7. However,   on   12.05.2015   an   article   appeared   in

Outlook along with a photograph of the applicant written by

Arundhati Roy with following title:

“So afraid is the government of this paralysed

wheelchair­bound  academic   that   the  Maharashtra   police

had to abduct him for arrest.”

The article then reads thus:

“May 9, 2015, marks one year since Dr G.N.

Saibaba, lecturer of English at Ramlal Anand College, Delhi

University,   was   abducted   by   unknown   men   on   his   way

home from work. When her husband went missing and his

cellphone  did  not   respond,  Vasantha,  Dr  Saibaba’s  wife,

filed   a   missing   person’s   complaint   in   the   local   police

station.   Subsequently   the   unknown   men   identified

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 9: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  9 ba785.15  

themselves  as   the  Maharashtra  Police  and  described   the

abduction as an arrest.

Why did they abduct him in this way when they

could easily have arrested him formally, this professor who

happens   to  be  wheelchair­bound and paralysed   from his

waist downwards since he was five years old? There were

two reasons: First, because they knew from their previous

visits to his house that if they picked him up from his home

on the Delhi University campus they would have to deal

with   a   crowd  of   angry   people—professors,   activists   and

students who loved and admired Professor Saibaba not just

because he was a dedicated teacher but also because of his

fearless political worldview. Second, because abducting him

made it look as though they, armed only with their wit and

daring,   had   tracked   down   and   captured   a   dangerous

terrorist. The truth is more prosaic. Many of us had known

for  a   long   time  that  Professor  Saibaba  was   likely   to  be

arrested.   It   had   been   the   subject   of   open  discussion   for

months. Never in all those months, right up to the day of

his abduction, did it ever occur to him or to anybody else

that he should do anything else but face up to it fair and

square. In fact, during that period, he put in extra hours

and  finished his  PhD on the Politics  of   the Discipline of

Indian  English  Writing.  Why did  we  think  he  would  be

arrested? What was his crime?

….In 2010 and 2011, when Operation Green

Hunt was at its most brutal, a campaign against it began

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 10: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  10 ba785.15  

to gather speed. Public meetings and rallies took place in

several cities. As word of what was happening in the forest

spread,   the   international  media  began  to  pay  attention.

One of the main mobilisers of this public and entirely un­

secret   campaign   against   Operation   Green   Hunt   was

Dr   Saibaba.   The   campaign   was,   at   least   temporarily,

successful.

…On September 12, 2013, his home was raided

by 50 policemen armed with a search warrant for stolen

property   from   a   magistrate   in   Aheri,   a   small   town   in

Maharashtra.   They   did   not   find   any   stolen   property.

Instead they took away (stole?) his property. His personal

laptop, hard disks and pen drives. Two weeks later, Suhas

Bawache,   the   investigating   officer   for   the   case,   rang  Dr

Saibaba  and  asked  him  for   the  passwords   to  access   the

hard disks.  He gave  it   to them. On January 9,  2014, a

team of policemen interrogated him at his home for several

hours. And on May 9, they abducted him. That same night

they flew him to Nagpur and from there drove him to Aheri

and   then   back   to   Nagpur   with   hundreds   of   policemen

escorting the convoy of  jeeps and mine­proof vehicles. He

was incarcerated in the Nagpur central jail in its notorious

‘Anda Cell’, adding his name to the three hundred thousand

undertrials who crowd our country’s prisons. In the midst

of  all   the high theatre,  his  wheelchair  was damaged. Dr

Saibaba  is  what  is  known as  “90 per   cent  disabled”.   In

order   to   prevent   his   physical   condition   from   further

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 11: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  11 ba785.15  

deteriorating,  he needs  constant   care,  physiotherapy  and

medication.  Despite this,  he was thrown into a bare cell

(where he still remains) with nobody to assist him even to

use the bathroom. He had to crawl around on all   fours.

None of this would fall under the definition of torture. Of

course  not.  The  great  advantage   the   state  has  over   this

particular prisoner is that he is not equal among prisoners.

He can be   cruelly   tortured,  perhaps  even killed,  without

anybody having to so much as lay a finger on him.

...Another  of   the  serious offences   listed   in   the

chargesheet is that Dr Saibaba is the joint secretary of the

Revolutionary   Democratic   Front   (RDF),   an   organisation

that is banned in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh where it is

suspected   to   be   a   Maoist   ‘front’   organisation.   It   is   not

banned in Delhi. Or Maharashtra. 

...Dr   Saibaba’s   trial   has  not   begun.  When   it

does, it is likely to take months, if not years. The question

is,  can a person with a 90 per cent disability survive  in

those abysmal prison conditions for so long?

...In the year he’s been in prison, his physical

condition has deteriorated alarmingly.  He is  in constant,

excruciating   pain.   (The   jail   authorities   have   helpfully

described   this   as   “quite   normal”   for   polio   victims.)   His

spinal cord has degenerated. It has buckled and is pushing

up against his lungs. His left arm has stopped functioning.

The   cardiologist   at   the   local   hospital   where   the   jail

authorities took him for a test has asked that he be given

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 12: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  12 ba785.15  

an angioplasty urgently. If he does undergo an angioplasty,

given   his   condition   and   the   conditions   in   prison,   the

prognosis is dire. If he does not, and remains incarcerated,

it   is   dire   too.  Time  and  again   the   jail   authorities  have

disallowed him medication that is vital not just to his well­

being,   but   to   his   survival.   When   they   do   allow   the

medicines, they disallow the special diet that is meant to go

with it.

Despite   the   fact   that   India   is   party   to

international covenants on disability rights, and Indian law

expressly   forbids   the   incarceration   of   a   person   who   is

disabled   as   an   undertrial   for   a   prolonged   period,   Dr

Saibaba has been denied bail twice by the sessions court.

On the second occasion, bail was denied based on the jail

authorities   demonstrating   to   the   court   that   they   were

giving   him   the   specific,   special   care   a   person   in   his

condition required. (They did allow his family to replace

his wheelchair.) Dr Saibaba, in a letter from prison, said

that the day the order denying him bail came, the special

care   was   withdrawn.   Driven   to   despair,   he   went   on   a

hunger strike. Within a few days, he was taken to hospital

unconscious.

...No matter what the charges against him are,

should Professor Saibaba get bail? Here’s  a  list  of  a  few

well­known public   figures  and  government   servants  who

have been given bail.

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 13: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  13 ba785.15  

On April  23,  2015,  Babu  Bajrangi,   convicted

and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 2002

Naroda Patiya massacre in which 97 people were murdered

in broad daylight, was released on bail by the Gujarat High

Court for an “urgent eye operation”. This is Babu Bajrangi

in his own words speaking about the crime he committed:

“We didn’t spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on

fire, we set them on fire and killed them—hacked, burnt,

set  on  fire....  We believe   in setting  them on  fire  because

these bastards don’t want to be cremated. They’re afraid of

it.”—‘After  killing   them,   I   felt   like  Maharana Pratap’   in

Tehelka, September 1, 2007.

...On July 30, 2014, Maya Kodnani, a former

minister of the Modi government in Gujarat, convicted and

serving a 28­year sentence for being the ‘kingpin’ of that

same  Naroda  Patiya  massacre,  was   granted   bail   by   the

Gujarat High Court. Kodnani is a medical doctor and says

she suffers from intestinal tuberculosis, a heart condition,

clinical depression and a spinal problem. Her sentence has

been suspended.

They’ve  allowed his  wheelchair   to  be   replaced

but denied Saibaba bail twice. Babu Bajrangi was let off for

eye   surgery.   Maybe   he’ll   replace   the   murderous   lens   he

views the world with.

Amit Shah, also a former minister in the Modi

government in Gujarat, was arrested in July 2010, accused

of   ordering   the   extrajudicial   killing   of   three   people—

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 14: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  14 ba785.15  

Sohrabuddin   Sheikh,   his   wife   Kausar   Bi   and   Tulsiram

Prajapati.  The CBI produced phone records showing that

Shah was in constant touch with the police officials who

held   the   victims   in   illegal   custody   before   they   were

murdered, and that the number of phone calls between him

and those police officials spiked sharply during those days.

Amit  Shah  was   released  on   bail   three  months  after   his

arrest.   (Subsequently,   after   a   series   of   disturbing   and

mysterious  events,  he  has  been  let  off  altogether.)  He   is

currently the president of the BJP, and the right hand man

of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

...Will   Dr   Saibaba   come   out   of   the   Nagpur

central jail alive? Do they want him to? There is much to

suggest they do not.”

8. A careful   reading of   the  above passages   from the

article clearly reveals a game plan of   the author  to have an

order of bail on merits as well as on medical grounds for the

applicant, knowing fully well that the plea for bail was turned

down by  the  Sessions Court  as  well  as  Single  Judge of   this

Court (Hon'ble Shri Justice S.  B.  Shukre).   The tenor of  the

article   shows   that   the  author  knows  each  and every  details

about the applicant and is highly interested in anyhow getting

his release on bail.  Instead of challenging the orders passed by

Sessions Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court, the

author appears to have invented a novel idea of bashing the

Central   Government,   the   State   Government,   the   Police

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 15: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  15 ba785.15  

machinery so also judiciary and that was,  prima facie, with a

mala fide  motive to interfere in the administration of justice.

The   language  used  by   the  author   in  her  article   against   the

Government and the police machinery is as nasty as it could be

and one really wonders whether the same would befit to the

prestigious awards the author is said to have won.  Calling the

Government   and   police   as   being   “afraid”   of   the   applicant,

“abductor” and “thief” and the Magistrate from a “small town”,

demonstrate the surly, rude and boorish attitude of the author

in the most tolerant country like India.   When she described

about   the   innocence   of   the   applicant,   the   question   arises

whether   she   was   an   eye   witness   to   the   arrest,   search   and

seizure.   Whether she has any evidence to make such vitriolic

remarks about the Government, the police machinery and the

judiciary. As to the physical condition of the applicant, whether

she verified the Government hospital records of the jail and the

special and super medical treatment given to him or whether

whatever she has written in the article for somehow getting the

release  of   the  applicant­Dr.  Saibaba   from Jail   is   out  of  her

imagination and bombastic ideas.  The author has even gone to

the extent of scandalizing and questioning the credibility of the

higher   judiciary   by   giving   examples   of   the   orders   of   bail

granted to “Babu Bajrangi”, “Maya Kodnani” and “Amit Shah”.

Does the author know that the grant of bail depends on the

facts and evidence in each case and there cannot be any such

comparison.  Is it not the fact that the Central Government, the

State Government, the police machinery and the armed forces

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 16: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  16 ba785.15  

are fighting for prevention of unlawful and terrorist activities in

the country when the Naxal plague has taken a pincer grip.

Prima facie, it appears to me that the author thinks

that she is above the law and the same stood established when

she   had   indulged   in   similar   scurrilous   remarks   and   was

convicted by the apex Court which sentenced her to undergo

imprisonment   for  one  day  and  to  pay a   fine   in   the   sum of

Rs.2000/­ vide  judgment  in  ARUNDHATI ROY IN RE; 2002

(3) SCC 343. 

This   Court   is   also   surprised   that   despite   the

intemperate and humiliating language used against the Central

Government, the State Government, the police machinery and

the armed forces, they have not taken any action against the

author who, in the name of freedom of speech, is exploiting the

situation.

9. It then appears that one Ms Purnima Upadhyay, the

alleged social worker in the tribal area of Amravati District sent

an E­mail to the Hon'ble the Chief justice of the Bombay High

Court, relying upon a comment dated 08.06.2015 of Mr. Pavan

Dahat   in   “The   Hindu”   and   the  sou   motu  Criminal   PIL

No.4/2015  was   registered  at   the  Bombay High  Court.    The

Principal Bench at Mumbai passed various orders in the said

PIL registered for considering the plea for bail on the health

ground in respect of the applicant.   But the applicant was not

even a party to the said PIL till   it  was disposed of and as a

matter of fact, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant Ms

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 17: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  17 ba785.15  

Rebecca   John,   made   a   statement   before   this   Court   on

20.11.2015 that the applicant had never applied for grant of

bail before the High court in the aforesaid PIL on any ground

including the medical ground.  Be that as it may.  The Division

Bench called medical reports in respect of the health condition

of the applicant and considered the medical reports and lastly

made an order granting bail  to the applicant for a period of

three months.  Paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the said order read

thus:

“20. Having   carefully   considered   the   rival

submissions,  we are of  the view that the proviso to sub­

section (5) of section 43­D of the Act does not and cannot

take away the constitutional remedy of an accused under

Article  226 of   the Constitution.    Of course,   it   is  only  in

exceptional     cases     that     the     Court     would     consider

exercising its extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for

the purpose of granting bail or temporary bail in extremely

rare and exceptional cases.  In the facts and circumstances

indicated   above,   the   present   case   is   one   such   rare   and

exceptional case. 

21. In   the   circumstances,   if   this   Court   does

not   exercise extraordinary  jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution this Court   would   be   failing   in   its

duty     of     protecting     the     fundamental rights of Prof.

Saibaba under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, who

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 18: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  18 ba785.15  

was confined to a secluded cell and was not in a position to

move this Court on his own. Hence we are inclined to direct

the respondents to release the undertrial prisoner Prof. G.N.

Saibaba on temporary bail for a period of 3 months for his

medical treatment and   supportive   care   by   his   family

and   medical   personnel   at   New Delhi.”

10. The Division Bench then on 04.09.2015 made the

last order in the said PIL which reads thus:

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor and also having gone through

the   report   dated  31  August,  2015  of   the   Indian  Spinal

Injuries   Centre,   New   Delhi,   we   extend   the   period   of

temporary bail granted to Prof. G. N. Saibaba for medical

treatment up to 31 December, 2015 on same bond.

2. Learned   counsel   for   the  petitioner   states   that

five other accused in the same criminal case pending in the

Sessions   Court,   Gadchiroli   have   recently   been   granted

regular bail by Nagpur Bench of this Court.

3. In view of above, we dispose of the Suo Motu

Writ Petition No.1 of 2015 with liberty to the petitioner to

move the Nagpur Bench of this Court for regular bail.   In

view of disposal of Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1 of 2015,

Criminal Application No.383 of 2015 does not survive and

stands disposed of as such.”

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 19: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  19 ba785.15  

11. Pursuant to the above liberty granted in paragraph

3, this application has been filed in this Court.  The next aspect

is   about   consideration   of   the   prayer   for   releasing   of   the

applicant   on   medical   grounds.   There   is   a   report   dated

16.06.2015 at Annexure­I along with reply filed by the State

furnished   by   Chief   Medical   Officer,   Central   Prison,   Nagpur.

Perusal of the report shows that the applicant was given special

treatment due to his health problems existing even prior to his

arrest.     It   is  not   in  dispute   that   the  applicant   suffered 90%

disability from his childhood.   He had also undergone cardiac

surgery   about   8   to   10   years   before   and,   therefore,   the

projection made by the applicant, the author Arundhati Roy or

Purnima Upadhyay, the so called human right champions, on

account of his arrest and thereafter detention in Jail in such a

serious crime or absence of medical facilities and his health is

deteriorating   in   jail   and   so   and   so   forth,   is   nothing   but   a

subterfuge and excuse to come out of jail.     The report shows

that the applicant was provided with necessary treatments and

was rather a special guest in the jail and was provided medical

treatment   and   the   experts   from   the   Government   Medical

College   and  Hospital   and  Super  Speciality  Hospital,  Nagpur

had examined him.  In paragraph 2 of the letter, it is stated by

the   Chief   Medical   officer   that   on   12.03.2015,   upon

examination   by   the   expert   Doctor   of   Government   Super

Speciality  Hospital,  Nagpur,  an advise was given to undergo

Coronary Angiography but the applicant denied to do so and

stated that  “You do so only  in private  hospital  of  his  choice.”

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 20: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  20 ba785.15  

That   apart,   the   cluster   of   papers   on   record,   which   I   have

perused carefully, clearly shows that the health of the applicant

was   taken   care   of   by   the   expert   Medical   Officers   of   the

Government Medial College and Hospital and Super Speciality

Hospital of the Government and not only that if required even

in the private hospitals  at Nagpur.    As a matter of  fact,   the

applicant himself  has produced on record a certificate  dated

02.12.2015   signed  by   the   applicant   issued  by   Indian   spinal

Injury Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which reads as under:

“This   is   to   certify   that   Mr.G.N.Saibaba,   aged   47

years/male, presented at Indian Spinal Injuries Centre on

02/12/2015,   vide   OPD   registration   no.466562   with

known   case   of   post   polio   residual   paralysis   with   chief

complaints  of   reduction  in  left   shoulder  movements  and

pain in back for which he has managed conservatively with

supportive medication. He is undergoing treatment under

me from OPD basis with regular follow­up and continues

medications   prescribed.   Patient   is   advised   continue

treatment   and   physiotherapy   +shoulder   strengthening

exercises for 3 months.”

12. Perusal  of   the  above   certificate   clearly   shows   the

present health condition of the applicant.  It is perfectly normal

and is in the same position as it was when he was in jail.  There

is no change therein from the date of his arrest.  However, he is

advised for his treatment on OPD basis with regular follow up,

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 21: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  21 ba785.15  

medications and physiotherapy exercise for three months.  This

was the same condition, when he was arrested.

13. As discussed above,   the scandalous and scurrilous

allegations   are   made   by   author   Arundhati   Roy   in   the   said

article against the judiciary.   Not only that, she has indirectly

questioned the sanctity of the order made by the learned Judge

of this Court (Hon'ble Shri Justice S. B. Shukre) for rejecting

the  bail   application   filed  by   the   applicant   vide  order  dated

25.08.2014 in Bail Application No.485/2014 by comparing the

case of the present applicant with Babu Bajrngi, Maya Kodnani

and Amit Shah.  It is not in dispute that by making the above

allegations and remarks about the rejection order made by this

Court as above and then asking as to why the applicant should

not  also  get   relief   of  bail   by   scandalizing   the  Court,   in  my

opinion, amounts to interfering in the administration of justice

and lowering down the image of the judiciary without any basis

and with selfish motive. This,  prima facie,  constitutes criminal

contempt  and,   therefore,   it   is   a   fit   case  where  an  order  of

issuance  of  notice   for   criminal   contempt  against   the  author

Arundhati Roy is required to be made.

14. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is

no substance in this application.  Hence, the order.

ORDER

(i) Criminal Application No.785/2015 is dismissed.

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::

Page 22: Order high court 23.12.2015

Bombay

Hig

h Court

  22 ba785.15  

(ii) The   applicant­Dr.  Gokarakonda  Naga  Saibaba   s/o

G.   Satyanarayana   Murthy   shall,   within   forty   eight   hours,

surrender by reporting to Central Jail, Nagpur.   Upon failure,

he shall be arrested by the police.

(iii) Office   is   directed   to   register   Criminal   Contempt

against the author Arundhati Roy in the light of the discussion

made above.

(iv) Issue notice to the author Arundhati Roy for action

for contempt of Court, returnable on 25.01.2016.

Place the matter before the appropriate Bench

          JUDGE

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks

one month's time to surrender.

In view of the reasons given in the judgment, the

prayer is rejected.

          JUDGE

kahale

::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 17:19:25 :::