Jyeshtha Krushnapaksha 7, Kaliyug Varsha 5115
 |
Maoist sympathiser Sheetal Sathe was granted bail from the Bombay High Court on Thursday, June 27, 2013, on humanitarian grounds (being in an “advanced stage of pregnancy”) after the Public Prosecutor’s office did not oppose the bail plea. Sathe becomes the third Maoist to receive bail from Justice Abhay Thipsay; the State was represented by additional public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde.
The ease with which Sathe received bail has caused heart burning in some quarters as Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian repeatedly opposed bail for Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur even after she was diagnosed with cancer and refused treatment on grounds of harassment. Now the same office has found magnanimity and compassion for a Maoist sympathiser.
Sadhvi Pragya denied bail, allowed to attend father’s funeral
Salian ‘vehemently’ disputed the ‘Cancer diagnosis certificate’ dated July 5, 2012, issued by Dr Sameer Pathan of the Indian Cancer Society attached to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai. While opposing bail for Sadhvi Pragya, she went to the extent of creating an impression that the tissues examined by Dr Pathan may not belong to the Sadhvi but could belong to someone else!
The truth, in fact, was that the tissues were taken out by Dr Rajput strictly on the basis of an order passed by Special NIA Court Bhopal, and Dr Rajput had filed his own affidavit before the Bombay High Court in the matter of Sadhvi Pragya’s bail application No. 1679/2012.
The double standards applied by the public prosecutor’s office to the bail pleas of two women prisoners espousing different ideologies is a glaring example, if one were needed, of what ails the Indian State and its judicial system.
Sheetal Sathe is an alleged Maoist sympathiser and member of the Pune-based Kabir Kala Manch. She and her husband, Sachin Mali, were charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), and surrendered on April 2, 2013, outside the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha. They were handed over to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The duo is among 15 persons charged on April 17, 2011, for being members of and supporting and recruiting for the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Five years later, still no case against Sadhvi Pragya
Seven of the accused were arrested in 2010; six are absconding. Sathe sought bail on humanitarian grounds (her baby is due early July) and on grounds of parity as all seven co-accused have received bail.
Kabir Kala Manch was founded by Amarnath Chandaliya in 2002. It uses protest music and theatre to campaign on human rights issues and oppose caste-based violence and discrimination. In his statement to the ATS, Chandaliya admitted holding meetings with banned CPI (Maoist) operatives Angela Sontakke and her husband Milind Teltumbde, but claimed that he later severed contacts with them owing to some differences. Chandaliya said Sheetal, Sachin, Ramesh Gaychor, Dhavala Dhengle joined the Manch in 2005.
Sontakke was arrested in April 2011. The ATS claimed she was a senior member of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), and filed charges against 15 Kabir Kala Manch members for allegedly having links with her.
Investigations suggested that over the course of several meetings and one 15-day study camp held in Khed taluka, Pune, Angela and Milind indoctrinated the Kabir Kala Manch members into Maoist ideology. Sheetal allegedly headed the cell formed by Angela for attracting people living in slums. Sheetal was a very good singer of revolutionary songs and figured in Anand Patwardhan’s documentary film, Jai Bhim Comrade.
As was only to be expected in such a case, Amnesty International rushed to support the ‘revolutionaries’, lecturing the authorities that Indian and international law favour pre-trial release for all persons accused of penal offences. It pointed out that under article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which India is party, it must not be the general rule to hold people in custody pending trial.
The right to liberty of the person requires that deprivation of liberty should always be the exception, and imposed only if it is justified, necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case. All possible non-custodial measures, such as bail or undertaking to appear, must be explored by the judicial authority before making a decision to remand in custody, and such detention must be regularly reviewed by a judicial authority.
Bail for Syed Kazmi but not Sadhvi Pragya
It goes without saying that this yardstick is not uniformly applied in India, and that the Indian State shows extreme tolerance to interference from international busy bodies who support ‘revolutionaries’ opposed to the State and indulging in violence or abetting violence against ordinary unarmed citizens.
The judicial system and the ruling coalition at the Centre [read Congress which dominates the UPA] showed extreme solicitude towards Maoist sympathiser Binayak Sen who was arrested in May 2007 by the Chhattisgarh Government for aiding Maoists. In April 2011, he was granted bail by the Supreme Court, and soon after made member of a Planning Commission panel, to snub the State Government. This petty defiance came back to haunt the Congress when almost its entire leadership in Chhattisgarh was wiped out in a gruesome attack by Maoists in Bastar district on May 25, this year.
It bears stating that the Supreme Court of India has frequently expressed the view that bail should be the rule and detention in jail the exception, and that refusal of bail is a restriction on the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The experience of citizens, however, shows that bail is too often a privilege, the product of a covert discretionary quota raj that functions under rules known only to those inside a charmed ideological circle. It is not for everyone.
Source : Niti Central
