Sympathy,not sedition: SC clears bail for Binayak Sen

“Can we call a person Gandhian just because a copy of the Mahatma’s autobiography was found at his home? Is it your case that having documents and pamphlets on Maoists and Naxalites at his (Sen’s) house (makes him an outlaw)?” the Bench poked holes at the Chhattisgarh government affidavit’s reference to the alleged recovery of documents and pamphlets from Sen’s house.

He is also accused of having visited co-accused Piyush Guha 33 times in the jail,besides having “deep links” with the Naxalite leadership.

The state’s affidavit stated that Sen’s alleged complicity included “providing logistic support,exchange of information and material directly and indirectly with the Naxalites in the areas of Chhattisgarh,West Bengal,Andhra Pradesh,Maharashtra,Bihar,Jharkhand and Orissa and propagates Naxal ideology”.

Senior counsel U U Lalit,representing the state government,requested the court to consider the larger picture involved in the case,including that “a host of allegations were arraigned against the accused”.

“There is a host of allegations against him. He was harbouring them (Naxalites), getting houses for them. He was not a genuine sympathiser,” Lalit argued.

“My case has been accepted by the trial court and the apex court has only to consider whether he can be granted bail or not,” the senior advocate said.

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani,appearing for 61-year-old Sen,said the conviction for sedition was untenable and illegal in the face of law and the trial court judgment did not comply with any requirement of law.

The court was doubtful about the veracity of the state’s accusation that Sen during his jail visits had passed on books and pamphlets to Guha and others,asking why no material evidence,including the prison’s surveillance cameras,was placed to substantiate the charge.

“Visitors are screened and searched by the jail staff when they go and meet the inmates. The jailors are there to oversee all these things. So the question of passing letters or documents does not arise,” the Bench observed.

But Lalit countered that there were no cameras installed at that time.

Foreseeing that the Bench was in favour of giving Sen bail after it repeated that “no case of sedition is made out”,Lalit changed tack to ask the court to lay down certain conditions in the bail order.

“If Your Lordships are granting bail,then he should not enter the state like that Gujarat minister,” Lalit said in a reference to the Supreme Court granting bail to former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah,an accused in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

The court,however,disagreed with Lalit,saying that Shah’s trial was on while Sen has already been convicted. The Bench gave liberty to the local court before which Sen would apply for bail to lay down any conditions if necessary.