The Supreme Court on Saturday suspended the Bombay High Court order acquitting ex-Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba in the case pertaining to his alleged Maoist links. The high court failed to consider the case on merits and discharged the accused only on the issue of an invalid sanction, the Supreme Court observed.
This means GN Saibaba continues to remain in custody. However, he is permitted to file a fresh bail appeal.
The high court order was required to be considered in detail, but it discharged the accused only on the ground that the sanction was invalid, the special bench observed. Considering the seriousness and the gravity of the offense this is a fit case for the suspension of the sentence, the top court observed.
Supreme Court also denied Saibaba's plea for house arrest on medical grounds as opposed to being kept in jail. "There is a recent tendency from 'urban naxals' to seek house arrests. But everything can be done from within the home for them, even by phone. Please say that house arrest can never be an option," said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta arguing against this plea.
The top court's order came on an urgent appeal filed by Maharashtra government hours after the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court pronounced its order acquitting Saibaba. Justices MR Shah and Bela Trivedi sat in a special hearing on Saturday to hear the matter.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday held the proceedings in the 2017 trial convicting Saibaba null and void in the absence of a valid sanction under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 prior to the commencement of the trial.
The life term awarded to Saibaba was also set aside.
Acquittal on technicality, Merits of the case not decided: SC
The special bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Bela Trivedi observed that the high court took a "virtual shortcut" by deciding the case on a technicality alone, and not considering the case on its merits.
Justice Trivedi pointed out that in accordance with the law, an appellate court (high court) can acquit an individual only after reversing the findings of the trial court. The bench said since the high court did not decide on the merits of the case, it would need to consider several important questions of law that arise in this present appeal.
"In a case where the trial court has convicted accused on basis of material and appreciation of evidence, is the appellate court justified in discharging accused on the ground of sanction.... since the ground of no sanction was raised during trial and trial moved on as is?" the bench said.
Issue of irregular sanction not raised during the trial: Maharashtra to SC
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta admitted before the Supreme Court that the sanction to prosecute GN Saibaba in accordance with the UAPA came late. However, when he had the opportunity, Saibaba did not raise this issue of the irregular sanction during trial proceedings before the sessions court.
"That was the first opportunity to raise the ground of sanction. He waived," Mehta added.
Mehta argued that the purpose of taking sanction was to ensure that a person is not put through a "vexatious trial". "However, this is not a vexatious trial," he argued adding that the accused was found guilty after a full-fledged trial.
Issue of Sanction raised during cross-examination: GN Saibaba to SC
During the special hearing on Saturday, senior advocate R Basant argued against the suspension of the judgment and a plea to remand GN Saibaba under house arrest on medical grounds.
Justice Shah asked if Saibaba raised any specific, independent objection regarding sanction during trial, "Yes, or No? A simple question."
Basant responded: "No application was made. But at the stage of cross-examination, this plea was raised." Basant argued that during the appeal before the high court, Saibaba had argued on all points but the high court focused on the issue of sanction alone.
To this, Justice Shah said, "We are not finding fault with you (Saibaba), we are finding fault with the high court for not entering in the merits of the case…You may have argued everything, but can the benefit of the mistake committed by the high court be given to the accused?"
Basant then argued that the state has accused Saibaba of being a mastermind. Though there is nothing to prove the same, he submitted. At this, Justice Shah orally observed that "so far as terrorist or Maoist activities are concerned, the brain is more dangerous. Direct involvement is not necessary."
"I am generally observing, not with respect to this specific case," Justice Shah clarified.
Pressing for house arrest, Basant said Saibaba had no criminal antecedents and he was leading a respectable life though he may be "ideologically inclined". He further drew the court's attention to Saibaba's physical disability to urge against the suspension of the order.
"He is disabled to 90 percent. Paraplegic. He has multiple other ailments which are judicially accepted. He is confined to his wheelchair," Basant had said.
