BREAKING| Bombay High Court Dismisses Maharashtra's Plea To Stay Judgment Acquitting Prof GN Saibaba & Others

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an application filed by the State of Maharashtra Government seeking to stay the implementation of the acquittal of former Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba and five others in a Maoist-links case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

The State filed an application before the HC bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes this afternoon hours after the bench delivered the judgment today morning. The copy of the judgment is yet to be uploaded. 

In the application, the State said it has approached the Supreme Court against the acquittal order passed in the morning. Advocate General Birendra Saraf appeared for the State.

Rejecting the application, the Court held it has become functus officio, meaning that once a judge makes a decision, he or she lacks any power to re-examine that decision. Further, the issue pertained to the liberty of an individual, the Court added.

“The offences in question are of a serious nature and the Applicant/State is thus constrained to seek stay of implementation of the Judgment & order dated 05.03.2024 of this Hon'ble Court. The State has already filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) bearing Diary No.10501/2024 and has sought urgent listing of the same. Thus, to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant is constrained to seek before this Hon'ble Court a stay to the implementation of the judgment,” the application read.

Advocate Nihalsingh Rathod appeared for the accused.

However, the court dismissed the application and said a copy of the judgement would be made available soon.

Wheelchair-bound GN Saibaba and his co-accused have been under custody since their arrest in 2014 on charges of having links with Maoist organizations and waging war against India.

During the trial at the Sessions Court in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, the prosecution contended that the accused were working for the banned CPI (Maoist) group through front organizations such as RDF. The prosecution relied on evidence including seized pamphlets and electronic material deemed as anti-national, allegedly seized at the behest of GN Saibaba in Gadchiroli. It was further alleged that Saibaba handed over a 16GB memory card intended for Naxalites sheltering in the Abuzmad forest area.

The subsequent trial led to their conviction in March 2017 under sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA and 120-B of IPC. One of the accused, Pandu Pora Narote, died in August 2022. Mahesh Tirki, Hem Keshwdatta Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vijay Nan Tirki are the other accused.

In 2022, another bench of the Bombay HC had set aside the conviction based on procedural grounds, with the bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare holding the trial void due to the absence of a valid sanction under section 45(1) of the UAPA. The court had underscored the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving terrorism and emphasized that departures from due process could foster an environment conducive to terrorism.

However, in a special Saturday sitting, which attracted controversy, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court order the very next day after an urgent mentioning by the Maharashtra Government.

Later, the Supreme Court overturned this decision in a plea filed by the Maharashtra government challenging the acquittal and directed the Bombay High Court to reevaluate the case afresh.

The Supreme Court directed that the Bombay High Court must consider all aspects of the case, including the question of sanction. The bench stressed that the high court should proceed without prejudice and solely on the merits of the case, without being influenced by its earlier order.

It would be open for the State to contend that once an accused is convicted after the conclusion of a trial, the validity of the sanction or the lack thereof would become insignificant, the court added. Further, the Supreme Court instructed that the case be assigned to a different bench to maintain propriety and avoid any apprehensions.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had not made any determination on the merits of the case and emphasized the need for a thorough review by the high court.

Case no. – APEAL/137/2017

Case Title – Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra