The Supreme Court on October 1 rejected a plea by People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader Abdul Nazir Maudany to relax his bail condition and permit him to stay in his hometown in Kerala till the pendency of the trial in the 2008 Bengaluru bomb blast case in which he is an accused .
“Sorry Mr. Bhushan, we cannot relax,” Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, heading a Bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari, addressed advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Maudany along with advocate Haris Beeran.
In 2014, the Supreme Court granted Maudany bail on the ground that he had already undergone judicial custody for four years since August 2010 and was suffering from various health ailments. The bail came after the Karnataka authorities had undertaken to complete the trial within four months from November 14, 2014.
“They assured this court that the trial would be completed in four months. He has spent 11 years in jail since arrest and seven years under conditional bail... The case before the trial court is crawling at a snail’s pace,” Mr. Bhushan argued on October 1.
Appearing for Karnataka, advocate Nikhil Goel said Maudany could not be allowed to go outside the State (Karnataka).
“He was involved in Babri Masjid and even in the Coimbatore blasts... His leg was amputated during Babri Masjid. He has several charges against him in Kerala. Witnesses have earlier come forward, saying he had tried to influence them,” Mr. Goel submitted.
Mr. Bhushan took objection to Mr. Goel’s submission connecting Maudany to the “Babri Masjid incident”.
“His leg was amputated when there was an attack on him... It has nothing to do with Babri Masjid... He has been in jail continuously,” Mr. Bhushan argued.
Mr. Goel countered that the trial was being delayed by Maudany himself, who has sought the recall of 44 prosecution witnesses.
The Karnataka lawyer said Maudany was a “free man in Bengaluru... only that he is under surveillance”.
Mr. Bhushan said Maudany was the leader of a “recognised political party”. His father was completely paralysed. He had to visit his ailing father in Kerala and could be out under constant surveillance.
But the court did not relent.
Maudany in his petition had highlighted that his health was getting worse and suitable care was not available due to the COVID-19 pandemic situation. Besides, the stay in Bengaluru was causing an excessive financial burden on him, his application in the Supreme Court had said.
