The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Wednesday cancelled the bail of Delhi University professor G. N. Saibaba and asked him surrender before the police.
A single judge bench of Justice Arun Choudhari refused to hear the bail plea of the DU professor on “merit” and asked him to “surrender before Nagpur central jail within 48 hours failing which the police shall arrest him”.
Prof. Saibaba was arrested by Maharashtra police in May 2015 for alleged Maoist links.
The DU professor, who suffers from 90 percent physical disability due to post-Polio paralysis, was out on bail on medical grounds, after a bench of Bombay High Court headed by the then Chief Justice Mohit Shah granted him bail while treating an email citing The Hindu report on his deteriorating health as a PIL.
Justice Choudhari also issued a notice to writer Arundhati Roy on an intervention plea filed by advocate Bhandarkar , who had blamed Ms.Roy for “interference with the administration of justice” for writing an article in the Outlook magazine in support of Prof.Saibaba.
The DU professor’s advocate Nihal Singh Rathod said that he would move the Supreme Court for the bail of his client.
The Court has also asked the Professor to surrender before police within forty eight hours, failing which he can be arrested by the police. The Court in its judgement has reproduced an Article written by Arundati Roy which appeared in Outlook, in which she had questioned denial of bail to the Professor.
The court said that, instead of challenging the orders passed by Sessions Court and High Court, the author appears to have invented a novel idea of bashing the Central Government, the State Government, and the Police machinery and the judiciary and that was, prima facie, with a mala fide motive to interfere in the administration of Justice. Following are other observations made in this Judgement about Arundati Roy and her article-
- 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.
- 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.
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
Read Full Text of the Court Order-