Saibaba acquitted: what was the case against him, what did Bombay HC say?

The family of the former professor — his services were terminated by DU’s Ram Lal Anand College in 2021 — has repeatedly demanded his release given his health condition, and as he is wheelchair-bound.

What was the case against Saibaba and the others?

They were convicted of alleged involvement in Maoist activities in March 2017. Five of the convicts, including Saibaba, were given life imprisonment; the sixth, Vijay Tirki, was given rigorous imprisonment.

Principal District and Sessions Judge S S Shinde said, “Merely because Saibaba is 90 per cent disabled is no ground to show him leniency…he is physically handicapped but he is mentally fit, a think tank and a high-profile leader of banned organisations.”

The judge said that it had been “established by prosecution that all six accused belong to banned organisations CPI (Maoist) and Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), which is a Maoist front”.

“Several people had been killed and public property has been destroyed in the Maoist violence in Gadchiroli,” the judge said, adding that the Naxal movement was responsible for the violence.

Saibaba and other accused people were arrested between 2013 and 2014. According to police, many documents, a hard disk and pen drives were seized from Saibaba’s residence. The professor, who was placed under suspension by the university, was jailed till he was granted bail by the Bombay High Court on health grounds in May 2015. He was jailed again before being granted bail by the Supreme Court in September 2016.

The defence said that the evidence gathered against Saibaba was tampered with — contrary to the police’s statements on the material being sealed after collection until it was handed to the forensic lab for inspection.

What was the demand for his release?

Saibaba’s family had demanded bail many times since his imprisonment primarily over his health condition. In 2016, the Supreme Court (SC) asked the Maharashtra government to provide proper amenities to him and said, “We want you (state) to make him comfortable. Tell us how you will make him comfortable. You cannot have him in solitary confinement.”

A few months later bail was ordered by the SC on medical grounds. “You have been extremely unfair to him (Saibaba)…especially knowing his medical conditions. Why do you want him in jail if key witnesses have been examined? You are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner,” said the Bench led by Justice J S Khehar to the Maharashtra government.

However, he was soon sent back to jail. During this period his mother passed away four days after he was denied bail to meet her. He also contracted Covid-19 in 2021. Several earlier attempts by Saibaba’s lawyers to get bail for him on health grounds were rejected by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.

So how did the HC rule in their favour?

A Division Bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare underlined the importance of following due process in legal proceedings, and ruled that in the absence of a valid sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the proceedings before the sessions court were “null and void”.

“While the war against terror must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve, a civil democratic society can ill-afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided at the altar of perceived peril to national security,” the court said, according to Live Law.

Further details on the court’s rationale were awaited.

Following the verdict, Saibaba’s wife Vasanta Kumari told The Indian Express, “He is an intellectual and a teacher. He was framed in the case. His health has deteriorated and his limbs are not working properly because of spending seven years in jail. At present, my brother-in-law is in Nagpur to complete the formalities.”