 SA Bobde has refused to entertain a bail petition by Sameet Thakkar, who was arrested for making objectionable comments against the Maharashtra Chief Minister and his son Aditya Thackeray on social media.){kind=link}
New Delhi (ILNS): The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde has refused to entertain a bail petition by Sameet Thakkar, who was arrested for making objectionable comments against the Maharashtra Chief Minister and his son Aditya Thackeray on social media.
Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for petitioner, said: “It’s a very unfortunate case.”
The CJI asked: “Why are you coming here under article 32 directly?”
The bench has directed the petitioner to go to the high court instead.
Jethmalani told the court that these are bailable offences yet Thakkar has been put in jail.
Advocate Rahul Chitnis, representing the Maharashtra government, said: “His remand ends today. We will not be opposing bail as his custodial interrogation is over.”
Mahesh Jethmalani claimed that his client was treated inhumanely for a tweet and was also paraded in public.
Jethmalani said: “Please see my affidavit. These are all bailable offences and I have been arrested. Please see what has happened. If your Lordships are not shocked by this, then nothing will shock you.”
To this the court replied: “We see such matters every day. We are immune from such shocks. Nothing will shock us now.”
The CJI further informed that relief will be given as the state has assured it.
The plea was filed by Sameet Thakkar, who was arrested by the Maharashtra Police for his objectionable remark (Baby Penguin ) against Aaditya Thackeray.
The plea stated that certain tweets by the petitioner were:“Deliberately misconstrued by certain politically driven and powerful persons and with the sole objective of silencing and harassing Thakkar.”
Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Arnab Goswami’s case, the petitioner submitted that there is a “need to ensure that a criminal process does not take the character of a vexatious exercise by the institutions of multifarious complaints founded on the same cause in multiple states.”
Seeking consolidation of the FIRs, the plea stated that subjecting the accused to different proceedings arising out of different FIRs will defeat the objective of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.