Bombay High Court Rejects GN Saibaba’s Plea of Temporary Bail on Medical Grounds

Must Read

SC Stays the Discharge of 6 Women Short Service Commission Officers of the Indian Navy

On 4th August, the Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court Order. This Order was on the discharge of...

Kerala High Court Issues Conditional Bail in Demolition of Church Replica Case

The Kerala H.C. ruled that S.153A of I.P.C. cannot be attracted where there is a mere incitement of one...

An Overview of the Changes to be Introduced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The first consumer protection legislation Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘old act’) was introduced with the primary objective of protecting...

On 28th July 2020, Justice A.R Chandurkar and Justice Amit B. Borkar heard the case of Gokalkonda Naga Saibaba v. The State of Maharashtra. The Court rejected the bail plea of G.N. Saibaba. 

Facts of the Case 

The applicant committed offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for which he was convicted for life. Due to certain health problems, he filed a bail application in the Court to get temporary bail for 45 days.

Applicant’s Arguments 

The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant deserved bail on two grounds: 

  1. The COVID-19 infection is spreading in jail due to which many prison inmates and prison authorities had gotten infected, hence there are chances that the applicant may get infected by the same. 
  2. The health condition of the applicant had been deteriorating day by day. 

Additionally, since his mother is also not doing very well at this time, he needed to be with her. The two jail attendees who were looking after him had also not returned because of the lockdown. There was a lack of food and medical supplies, as well.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the report on the health status of the applicant prepared by the Chief Medical Officer of the Nagpur Central Prison. According to the report, the applicant had tested negative for the coronavirus infection. Furthermore, the fact that he was in a high-security prison cell meant that there could be no contact between the applicant and other inmates in the jail. Moreover, the necessary medicine and food supply of the applicant was being taken care of effectively. 

Generally, the prison staff also undergo blood tests to check the infection of COVID-19, and only those who test negative are allowed inside the prison. Additionally, the bail application previously filed by the applicant was rejected by the Court on 25th July 2020, and in that bail application, the applicant had not stated the present facts. Therefore this present application should be rejected.

Court’s Observation 

The Court relied on the medical report of the Chief Medical Officer Nagpur and observed that the applicant tested negative for COVID-19, and no evidence was submitted by the applicant that could prove his health deterioration. Moreover, the applicant was kept separately from other inmates, which ruled out the argument that he could be infected by the virus. 

Court’s Decision 

The Court rejected the bail application based on the medical reports given by the Chief Medical Officer, Nagpur, and on the statements presented by the jail authorities that the health of the applicant is being taken care of.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC Stays the Discharge of 6 Women Short Service Commission Officers of the Indian Navy

On 4th August, the Supreme Court stayed a Delhi High Court Order. This Order was on the discharge of...

Kerala High Court Issues Conditional Bail in Demolition of Church Replica Case

The Kerala H.C. ruled that S.153A of I.P.C. cannot be attracted where there is a mere incitement of one community, without reference to any...

An Overview of the Changes to be Introduced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

The first consumer protection legislation Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘old act’) was introduced with the primary objective of protecting consumer rights. However, with the...

Disparagement of Trademark, Products and Disparaging Advertisement 

Disparagement means “criticising someone in a wrong way” Disparagement is “to speak of slightingly, undervalue, to bring discredit or dishonour upon, the act of...

Political Prisoners and COVID‘s Double-Edged Sword for Those Awaiting Trial

The COVID pandemic has delayed judicial proceedings on one end. On the other end, it poses serious health risks for those kept in overcrowded...

More Articles Like This