Give immediate medical treatment to Maudany, court tells Karnataka

October 22, 2013 04:22 am | Updated November 16, 2021 10:24 pm IST - New Delhi

A file photo of PDP leader Abdul Nasir Maudany.

A file photo of PDP leader Abdul Nasir Maudany.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Karnataka government to immediately shift Abdul Nasir Maudany, an accused in the 2008 Bangalore bomb blast case, to a hospital for immediate medical treatment as per the latest medical report dated October 17. A Bench of Justices H.L. Gokhale and J. Chelameswar gave this direction even as counsel for Karnataka Anitha Shenoy sought two weeks time to file a counter in the bail petition filed by Mr. Maudauny in the case.

Counsel Prashant Bhushan and counsel Haris Beeran, appearing for the accused, handed over the latest medical report dated 17.10.2013 of the Agarwal Eye Hospital Bangalore. It stated that there was severe damage to Mr. Maudany’s left eye due to lack of follow-up treatment. There were chances of irreparable injury, the report stated, if immediate action was not taken. It prescribed immediate surgery and use of a certain type of injection.

After perusing the report, Justice Gokhale said health was of paramount concern and, therefore, Mr. Maudany, the petitioner, should be shifted immediately to the hospital and given the treatment as prescribed in the report. The court allowed his wife to be with him as his bystander during the course of treatment.

The Bench issued a notice to Kerala after allowing the petitioner’s application for its impleadment. The petitioner is suing the State on the ground that he is its ordinary resident and if granted bail he would reside there.

In his special leave petition, Mr. Maudany said he was named as an accused only after the submission of a third charge sheet in 2010 (although the Bangalore bomb blast incidenttook place in July 2008) “on the basis of statements which could only be deemed to be fabricated and concocted.”

He maintained that there was no evidence against him and that he was falsely implicated on the basis of some statements given by the accused before police, which was not admissible as evidence.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.