The Supreme Court on Monday granted Abdul Nasser Mahdani, the accused in the 2008 Bangalore blasts case, relaxation of bail conditions, allowing him to travel to and reside in his hometown in Kerala.
According to the bail conditions imposed by the Apex Court on July 11, 2014, the chairman of the Kerala People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was required to remain in Bengaluru until the completion of the trial in the blasts case.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahdani, informed the Court that the trial had concluded, and there was no justification for Mahdani to continue staying in Bangalore.
“He’s in a wheelchair, his leg is amputated, there’s a kidney transplant. His mother died, now his father is ill. The trial is over, arguments are going on. They themselves say that it’ll take two years for the arguments. There are many accused.” Sibal submitted.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh has granted relaxation of the previously imposed bail condition, permitting Abdul Nasser Mahdani to reside in his hometown of Kollam, Kerala. However, he is required to report to the nearest Police Station in Kollam every 15 days.
“At this stage, it is brought to our notice that the examination of witnesses has been completed and the matter is being argued before the court concerned, but arguments could proceed for sometime. Keeping in view the fact that at present, the presence of applicant would not be required on a hearing date, we deem it appropriate to grant the modification sought for. Hence, in modification of the order dated 11.07.2014, we permit the applicant to travel to his hometown in Kerala and reside there. However, to ensure that the applicant is adhering to all other requirements, we direct that the appellant will report to the Station House Officer of the nearest police station in Kollam district, once in 15 days. However, if the applicant is to attend to his medical needs and is to be away from Kollam district, he shall report to the Kollam police and go to such place as he desires. If any details are required, the jurisdictional court in Bangalore is permitted to seek for such details from the police station in Kollam district. With the said modification and subject to the applicant adhering to all other conditions, the application is disposed,” the order stated.
The counsel representing the State of Karnataka expressed strong opposition to the application. However, Justice Bopanna asked the Counsel for the State of Karnataka “If his presence is not required, what is the issue?”
In response, the counsel for the State of Karnataka mentioned that Bangalore had better medical facilities. In a lighthearted manner, Justice Bopanna remarked that ayurvedic treatment is not available there.
On April 17th, the Supreme Court had previously relaxed Mahdani’s bail condition, allowing him to visit his ailing parents in Kerala until July 8th.
The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi had previously issued an order stating, “Looking to the applicant’s own medical condition as well as his ailing parents who are residing in the State of Kerala, as an interim measure, consider it appropriate to order that the applicant be allowed to visit the State of Kerala for a period up to July 8, 2023, to meet his ailing parents accompanied by the Karnataka Police Escort and return in the same manner.” The bench clarified that Abdul Nasser Mahdani would be responsible for bearing the expenses of the police escort provided by the Karnataka Police.
Subsequently, Mahdani filed an application challenging the demand made by the Karnataka government for him to deposit over Rs 56 lakhs as security cover during his stay in Kerala. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this application.
During the previous hearing, Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mahdani, stated that his client had to cut short his visit as he was unable to afford the security deposit demanded by the State of Karnataka. Consequently, Mahdani was unable to visit his ailing father.
Abdul Nasser Mahdani, along with 31 others, was booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for their alleged involvement in a series of bomb blasts on July 25, 2008, in Bengaluru, which resulted in one fatality and 20 injuries.
