ADVERTISEMENT

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.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is a Premium article available exclusively to our subscribers. To read 250+ such premium articles every month
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
You have exhausted your free article limit.
Please support quality journalism.
The Hindu operates by its editorial values to provide you quality journalism.
This is your last free article.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT