SC suspends Bombay HC order acquitting Saibaba, others in Maoist links case; stays their release, convicts to remain in jail

The Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the Bombay High Court order acquitting former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba and five others in an alleged Maoist links case, saying the merits of the case was not considered while granting them the relief.

Saibaba (52), who is wheelchair-bound due to a physical disability and is currently lodged in the Nagpur central prison for more than eight years after his arrest, will remain in jail since the top court also stayed the release of five convicts in the case. One of the convicts is dead.

An apex court bench of justices M R Shah and Bela M Trivedi, which sat on a non-working day to hear the plea by the Maharashtra government against the acquittal order on Friday, said the offences for which the accused were convicted by the trial court are very serious and against the sovereignty and integrity of the country and a detailed scrutiny of the judgment is required as the high court did not consider the merits of the case.

It also rejected Saibaba's request to order his release from jail due to his disability and health conditions and put him under house arrest.

The Maharashtra government opposed the prayer, saying nowadays there is a new tendency of ''urban Naxals'' to seek house arrest.

It, however, allowed Saibaba, who was arrested in May 2014, to move a fresh bail application.

The Bombay High Court had acquitted Saibaba and five others for want of valid sanction for prosecution under the stringent anti-terror law UAPA.

The top court also issued notice to Saibaba and others and sought their replies by December 8.

A section of activists and Left outfits expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court decision and urged he be given bail for medical treatment.

The All India Students' Association (AISA) held a demonstration at the Delhi University's Arts Faculty demanding the release of Saibaba.

However, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis welcomed the apex court order, saying it would provide relief to the families of the policemen who were martyred in attacks by Naxalites.

''I am satisfied with the apex court's decision to suspend the high court order on Professor G N Saibaba. Yesterday, I had said that the high court decision was surprising and shocking for us, because releasing a person on technical grounds, against whom there was ample evidence of directly helping Maoists, was wrong. Hence, we approached the SC yesterday itself,'' the BJP leader told reporters at the Nagpur airport.

BJP's IT cell chief Amit Malviya took potshots at the Congress for supporting the high court order, saying “Gokalkonda Naga Saibaba was arrested on February 16, 2014, when the Congress-led UPA was in power”.

The apex court bench said it was of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 390 CrPC and to suspend the impugned judgment and order passed by the high court till further orders.

''The high court has not at all dealt with and considered anything on the merits of the judgment and order passed by the trial court, though even according to the counsel appearing on behalf of A-6 (Saibaba), the detailed submissions were made on behalf of the accused on merits of the appeal and on the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court,'' it said.

The bench added that the high court has discharged the accused number 1-5 only on the ground that the sanction was invalid, mainly on the ground that some material which was placed before the appropriate authority at the time of sanction/review were placed were available on the very day and that no reasons are given while granting sanction.

''The same is required to be considered in detail considering provision of Section 465 CrPC. So far as the A-6 is concerned, the accused has been discharged on the ground that there was no sanction the day on which the trial court took cognizance and even framed the charge. However, the same question is required to be considered in detail.'' Appearing for Saibaba, senior advocate R Basant submitted that his client is paraplegic with 90-95 per cent disability and wheelchair-bound with almost zero per cent mobility.

''He has a 23-year-old daughter and a wife. His bones are touching his lungs, which is further complicating the things. Looking at these aspects, please do not drag him back into jail. Please release him from jail and put him under house arrest and he will abide by any conditions which the court would impose.'' Opposing Basant's prayer, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, ''Nowadays, there is a tendency of urban Naxals that seek house arrest, but everything can be done from home. This house arrest cannot be an option.'' Mehta also submitted there were certain disturbing facts in the case and that Saibaba was allegedly involved in various activities, including an armed separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, waging war against the democratic setup of the country and arranging meetings of Maoist commanders.

''He was their brain and used to propagate their ideology.'' Referring to Mehta's submission, Basant said Saibaba may have some inclination towards the Maoist ideology, but he was certainly not their brain.

The bench said, ''We are not referring to this case but in general the brain is the most dangerous thing. For terrorists or Maoists, the brain is everything. Direct involvement is not necessary''.

The bench framed three questions to be decided by the apex court in the appeal including whether the high court was justified in discharging the accused Saibaba, who never raised the issue of absence of the mandatory sanction to prosecute under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) during the trial stage and did so only at the appellate stage in the high court.

Apart from Saibaba, the high court had acquitted Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Pandu Pora Narote (both farmers), Hem Keshavdatta Mishra (student) and Prashant Sanglikar (journalist), who were sentenced to life imprisonment, and Vijay Tirki (labourer), who was sentenced to 10 years in jail. Narote died during the appeal's pendency.