
A Mumbai sessions court granted anticipatory bail to seven Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) students nearly ten months after they applied, while denying relief to two others. The court observed that…
A Mumbai sessions court granted anticipatory bail to seven Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) students nearly ten months after they applied, while denying relief to two others. The court observed that paying homage to late professor GN Saibaba, who was acquitted under UAPA, cannot be termed illegal. However, it cited recovered material from electronic devices of the two denied students as allegedly instigating illegal activities.
The judge acknowledged the delay, attributing it to heavy pendency, and noted that if anticipatory bail applications take so long, criminal trials will take much longer. The students had organised a memorial for Saibaba without permission, leading to an FIR. The two denied students may challenge the order in Bombay High Court.
The judge rightly distinguished between paying homage to an acquitted person and using the platform for slogans supporting those accused in serious cases. Yet the ten-month delay in deciding anticipatory bail applications undermines the very purpose of such relief. The court’s candid acknowledgment of pendency is welcome, but it exposes a deeper crisis in the justice system. Will the High Court expedite the matter? And does recovered digital material truly justify custodial interrogation?
Source: hindustantimes.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.