Bombay High Court refuses to stay its order acquitting GN Saibaba

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to stay its decision to acquit the former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and five other accused in an alleged Maoist links case..The Maharashtra government had moved an application seeking stay on the judgment for six weeks, soon after a bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Valmiki SA Menezes acquitted Saibaba and others in the morning.However, the Court said that even though charges are serious, it was not inclined to "make any adventures" to stay the verdict after looking at the powers vested with it."We have already acquitted accused and directed their release forthwith if not required in another crime. We cannot stall said order, which may have effect on right of personal liberty. We reject the application of stay," the Court ordered. .It also clarified that the judgment of acquittal will be uploaded on the website of the High Court today itself. .State Advocate General (AG) Birendra Saraf had earlier argued that offences involved in the case have wider implications and the trial court had convicted the accused after considering their guilt and the seriousness of the charges.He added that though the judgment is not yet uploaded, considering the issued of law involved the State should have a fair opportunity to have the judgment tested before the Supreme Court.The Court was also told that the State has moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) to challenge the acquittal but some time would be required to seek listing of the matter before the Supreme Court..However, the Court questioned whether it was empowered to stay its own judgement after conviction. In response, the AG contended that the law does not preclude the court from exercising its discretion. However, the counsel representing the acquitted persons contended that the State has already filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and hence, the High Court has become functus officio.Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Saibaba, also submitted that after a judgement of acquittal, the Court does not commit a party back to custody. "Acquittal is not discretionary, acquittal is fact of finding an accused innocent. Once innocent, the person does not relegate that person back to custody. The court does not detain innocent people," Pais argued.Saibaba's counsel also said that the persons now acquitted must be released immediately. The High Court has made a positive finding and it is now for the Supreme to consider, he added. "When the AG says you do not need power, but there is discretion, I say it is an incorrect submission. It is an appellate court which can interdict an order, not the same court," Pais said further.In rebuttal, the AG said he was not seeking alteration of the judgment but stay on its operation for some time..Dealing with the arguments, the division bench said it had not received a satisfactory response to its query regard the High Court's powers to stay the verdict but only "a generalised submission that this court has powers""We are not in agreement with this submission to use the discretion when the Code [of Criminal Procedure] does not empower us to order stay when the court has already becomce functus officio," it said, while rejecting the application..The bench today acquitted the convicts after rehearing the appeal filed by Saibaba and others. A different bench of the High Court too had earlier acquitted the disabled professor on October 14, 2022.The matter was then reheard by the High Court happened after the Supreme Court set aside the October 2022 acquittal order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh hearing..Saibaba (54), is wheelchair-bound and 99 percent disabled. He is presently lodged in Nagpur Central Jail. A sessions court in Gadchiroli had, in March 2017, convicted Saibaba and the others for alleged Maoist links and for indulging in activities amounting to waging war against the country.The sessions court had held that Saibaba and two other accused were in possession of naxal literature with the intent and purpose of circulation amongst underground naxlites at Gadchiroli and residents of the district with the aim to incite the people to resort to violence.Further, the sessions court had negated the submission that the absence of sanction to prosecute Saibaba was fatal to the case of the prosecution..[Read order]