LatestLaws.
com
1
ou
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
rt
ba785.15
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
and Registrar's Orders.
Court's or Judge's orders.
ig
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.
Following is the prayer clause (i) in this bail
1.
ba
application:
(i)
Release
applicant
on
bail
in
crime
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
2
ba785.15
rt
Learned counsel for the applicant, however, raised an
additional ground about his prayer for grant of bail on the
ou
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
ig
quote para 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14, which read thus:
However,
evidence
9.
before
dealing
with
the
collected against the applicant, it would be
necessary
for
me
to consider
as to
whether the
Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF) could be called as
ba
frontal organization of the CPI (Maoist).
It is not in
dispute that this organization has not been specifically
om
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 harddisks of the applicant would sufficiently
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015
establish,
at
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
3
stage,
the
fact
that
RDF
is
a frontal
rt
this
ba785.15
organization of the banned organization CPI (Maoist) as it
ou
follows the same ideology and directs its activities towards
rendering of support to the said banned organization with
intention
to
further
activities
of
the
banned
an
organization. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
applicant does not agree.
in
Upon perusal of various documents filed
11.
the charge-sheet, I find that there is substance in the
ig
said submission of the learned
Public
Prosecutor,
at
least at this stage. There are various letters retrieved
from the hard-disks 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.
ba
indicate amongst others
complaining
about
his
that the applicant
having not
om
proper role in his organization.
These letters
been
is
assigned
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
4
ba785.15
rt
is further material which shows that RDF has been
protesting against the arrest of some Maoist leaders and
ou
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.
..
13.
With due respect, I must say, at this stage, that
12.
from the material collected against
the
applicant by
ig
the prosecution, one can very well see that the activities
of the applicant, prima facie, do not stop
agreement
with
an
the
at
expressing
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
ba
banned organization CPI (Maoist), but also one who has
been complaining about not giving him an active role
om
commensurate
with
his
capibility
discriminated in the organization
access
to
activists
of
an
interaction
the
banned
by
with
and
also
being
denying
him
the underground
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
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015
against
him.
Section
38
offence
is
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
5
association
with
a terrorist organization with
intention to further it's activities.
rt
for
ba785.15
Section 39 relates to
terrorist organization.
ou
giving support with intent to further the activity of a
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
bail on these grounds.
Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act clearly places
ig
14.
stage, the applicant would not be entitled to be released on
an embargo upon discretion of the Court in granting bail
the
to the accused persons, who
offences
punishable
have
been
under
charged
for
various sections
contained in Chapters IV and VI of the UAP Act. Proviso to
this Section lays down, inter alia, that the accused persons
ba
shall not be released on bail if, upon perusal of the case
diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of
om
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 43-B(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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
6
ba785.15
rt
continue the detention of the applicant in jail. However, upon
fresh look of the entire evidence placed before me by the
ou
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
The next submission made by Mr. Gadling, learned
ig
4.
merits of the matter of bail will have to be rejected, which I do.
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
ba
have been released on bail.
The coordinate Bench or the
learned Single Judge of this Court in those cases found no
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
7
rt
ba785.15
5.
The next ground for claiming the grant of bail raised
ou
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
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted
15.
ig
regarding prayer for bail on medical grounds, observed thus:
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
ba
the treatment, if he is detained in jail.
16.
From the reply of the prosecution, I find that
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
8
The
coordinate
Bench
of
this
Court,
while
rt
6.
ba785.15
considering his plea on medical grounds noted that the
ou
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
ig
have certainly considered the request if justified.
However, on 12.05.2015 an article appeared in
7.
Outlook along with a photograph of the applicant written by
ba
Arundhati Roy with following title:
So afraid is the government of this paralysed
wheelchair-bound academic that the Maharashtra police
om
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 Saibabas wife,
filed a missing persons complaint in the local police
station.
Subsequently
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015
the
unknown
men
identified
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
9
ba785.15
rt
themselves as the Maharashtra Police and described the
abduction as an arrest.
ou
Why did they abduct him in this way when they
could easily have arrested him formally, this professor who
happens to be wheelchair-bound 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
ig
with a crowd of angry peopleprofessors, 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
ba
terrorist. The truth is more prosaic. Many of us had known
for a long time that Professor Saibaba was likely to be
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
10
ba785.15
rt
to gather speed. Public meetings and rallies took place in
several cities. As word of what was happening in the forest
ou
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
ig
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
ba
hard disks. He gave it to them. On January 9, 2014, a
team of policemen interrogated him at his home for several
om
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 mine-proof 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 countrys 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
11
ba785.15
rt
deteriorating, he needs constant care, physiotherapy and
medication. Despite this, he was thrown into a bare cell
ou
(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.
ig
...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
ba
banned in Delhi. Or Maharashtra.
...Dr Saibabas trial has not begun. When it
does, it is likely to take months, if not years. The question
om
is, can a person with a 90 per cent disability survive in
those abysmal prison conditions for so long?
...In the year hes 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
12
ba785.15
rt
an angioplasty urgently. If he does undergo an angioplasty,
given his condition and the conditions in prison, the
ou
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 wellbeing, 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
ig
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
ba
giving him the specific, special care a person in his
condition required. (They did allow his family to replace
om
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? Heres a list of a few
well-known public figures and government servants who
have been given bail.
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
13
ba785.15
rt
On April 23, 2015, Babu Bajrangi, convicted
and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the 2002
ou
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 didnt spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on
fire, we set them on fire and killed themhacked, burnt,
set on fire.... We believe in setting them on fire because
ig
these bastards dont want to be cremated. Theyre 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 28-year sentence for being the kingpin of that
ba
same Naroda Patiya massacre, was granted bail by the
Gujarat High Court. Kodnani is a medical doctor and says
om
she suffers from intestinal tuberculosis, a heart condition,
clinical depression and a spinal problem. Her sentence has
been suspended.
Theyve allowed his wheelchair to be replaced
but denied Saibaba bail twice. Babu Bajrangi was let off for
eye surgery. Maybe hell 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
14
ba785.15
rt
Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kausar Bi and Tulsiram
Prajapati. The CBI produced phone records showing that
ou
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
ig
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.
ba
8.
A careful reading of the above passages from the
article clearly reveals a game plan of the author to have an
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
15
ba785.15
rt
machinery so also judiciary and that was, prima facie, with a
mala fide motive to interfere in the administration of justice.
ou
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
ig
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
ba
she verified the Government hospital records of the jail and the
special and super medical treatment given to him or whether
om
whatever she has written in the article for somehow getting the
release of the applicant-Dr. 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
16
ba785.15
rt
are fighting for prevention of unlawful and terrorist activities in
the country when the Naxal plague has taken a pincer grip.
ou
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.
ig
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
ba
situation.
9.
It then appears that one Ms Purnima Upadhyay, the
om
alleged social worker in the tribal area of Amravati District sent
an E-mail 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
17
ba785.15
rt
Rebecca John, made a statement before this Court on
20.11.2015 that the applicant had never applied for grant of
ou
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
ig
thus:
20.
Having
carefully
considered
the
rival
submissions, we are of the view that the proviso to subsection (5) of section 43-D 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
ba
exceptional
cases
that
the
Court
would
consider
exercising its extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:19 :::
LatestLaws.com
18
ba785.15
rt
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
ou
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.
The Division Bench then on 04.09.2015 made the
10.
ig
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
ba
treatment up to 31 December, 2015 on same bond.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:20 :::
LatestLaws.com
19
Pursuant to the above liberty granted in paragraph
rt
11.
ba785.15
3, this application has been filed in this Court. The next aspect
ou
is about consideration of the prayer for releasing of the
applicant on medical grounds. There is a report dated
16.06.2015 at Annexure-I 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
arrest.
treatment due to his health problems existing even prior to his
It is not in dispute that the applicant suffered 90%
ig
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
ba
deteriorating in jail and so and so forth, is nothing but a
subterfuge and excuse to come out of jail.
The report shows
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:20 :::
LatestLaws.com
20
ba785.15
rt
That apart, the cluster of papers on record, which I have
perused carefully, clearly shows that the health of the applicant
ou
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
ig
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
ba
pain in back for which he has managed conservatively with
supportive medication. He is undergoing treatment under
om
me from OPD basis with regular follow-up 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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:20 :::
LatestLaws.com
21
ba785.15
13.
ou
was the same condition, when he was arrested.
rt
medications and physiotherapy exercise for three months. This
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
ig
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
ba
opinion, amounts to interfering in the administration of justice
and lowering down the image of the judiciary without any basis
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:20 :::
LatestLaws.com
22
The applicant-Dr. Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba s/o
rt
(ii)
ba785.15
G. Satyanarayana Murthy shall, within forty eight hours,
ou
surrender by reporting to Central Jail, Nagpur. Upon failure,
(iii)
he shall be arrested by the police.
Office is directed to register Criminal Contempt
against the author Arundhati Roy in the light of the discussion
Issue notice to the author Arundhati Roy for action
ig
(iv)
made above.
for contempt of Court, returnable on 25.01.2016.
Place the matter before the appropriate Bench
JUDGE
ba
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant seeks
om
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 - 24/12/2015 09:32:20 :::
