Introduction:

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has declined to stay the judgment of the Bombay High Court, upholding the acquittal of Professor GN Saibaba and five others in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, pertaining to alleged Maoist links. The apex court, while acknowledging the well-reasoned nature of the high court’s verdict, refused to interfere with the acquittal despite the State of Maharashtra’s special leave petition.

Arguments:

The State of Maharashtra, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, sought a stay on the Bombay High Court’s judgment, arguing for the reconsideration of the acquittal. The prosecution emphasized the multiple acquittals by different benches and raised concerns regarding the evidence linking the accused to terrorist acts. On the other hand, the defense, led by GN Saibaba’s legal team, highlighted the meticulous reasoning of the high court, emphasizing the lack of evidence connecting the accused to specific incidents of violence or terrorism.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, made a prima facie observation that the Bombay High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned. Noting the previous overturning of the high court’s decision by the apex court in 2022, the bench indicated a need to honor the earlier interference while expressing reluctance to entertain the appeal. The court underscored the limited grounds for interfering with an acquittal order and acknowledged the presumption of innocence, emphasizing the hard-earned nature of acquittals.