The background of the case is that Saibaba, a wheelchair-bound former D.U professor had filed an application on medical grounds and the same was rejected by the High Court in 2019. An order for his conviction was passed by the court of session in Gadchiroli Maharashtra in March 2017 for the association with the Revolutionary Democratic Front, which is alleged to have affiliations to the Maoist organization.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court of India set aside the order that was given by the Bombay HC as per which the acquittal was granted to the former D.U professor and activist GN Saibaba and others, who were alleged to have Maoist links. The supreme court had remanded the matter back to the high court for consideration by a different bench on its merits.
The bench headed by Justice MR Shah was hearing a plea that was filed by the Maharashtra government. As per the same, a challenge was raised on the issue of the allowance of the appeals against the conviction and life sentence that has been imposed on GN Saibaba and the other five under the anti-terror law Unlaw Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
It has been stated by the bench that the Bombay HC can consider the questions arising in the matter. The apex court clarified that the decision in the matter would be in accordance with the merits of the case and at no point the bench should be influenced by the order of the Nagpur bench.
It also directed the Bombay HC that the disposition of the appeals should be done earliest and if possible, within the period of four months. It was also added by Justice Shah that the appeals must be presented in front of a bench that is different from the one that acquitted GN Saibaba so that any further apprehensions can be avoided.
On, 18th April during the final hearing of the matter, Senior Advocate R Basant who appeared on behalf of GN Saibaba laid a proposal that the matter can be remanded to the Bombay HC to be heard afresh, however, Justice Shah believed the setting aside of the acquittal order will have to be done before remitting to the Bombay HC.
Case Title: – State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tikri & Ors. | Diary No. 33164/2022
Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan