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 :::