Despite bail, Ghandy to stay in jail
A Delhi court may have granted interim bail to Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy, but he will remain in jail as he is also wanted in other cases in other parts of the country. The bail order was issued in August, but Mr. Ghandy is yet to furnish the bail bond because he is awaiting his statement to be recorded in another case.
“As of now, he will continue to be in jail as this is not the only case against him. He has not furnished the bail bond yet,” said his counsel Rebecca John.
Mr. Ghandy has been in judicial custody since September 2009 when he was arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. He is facing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
He is one of the senior ideologues of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and was also a member of the Central Committee (CC) when he was arrested. He went on a hunger strike in June this year in Tihar Jail for being denied basic rights.
Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh granted him bail, on medical grounds, on his furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of a like sum. The judge also directed him to be present in the court on trial dates.
The court had asked for a report on his medical condition from Tihar Jail. The Jail Superintendent said in his report that Mr. Ghandy “is a follow-up case of hypertension, decreased vision, in-growing toe nail with Keloid, benign prostatic hyperplasia and cervical spondylitis.”
“At present, his general condition is stable and vitals are stable,” the report further said.
“From the contents of the report, it is apparent that Kobad Ghandy is suffering from a host of medical ailments. He is aged about 65. His condition has visibly deteriorated during the trial of this case… Kobad Ghandy is in custody since 20.09.2009. His co-accused Rajinder Kumar has been granted bail (though he has not filed bail bonds and remains in custody). In these circumstances, I admit the accused, Kobad Ghandy, to interim bail for a period of three months…’’ the judge said.