Bombay HC extends Hany Babu’s stay at Breach Candy till June 15

The Bombay high court (HC) while asking the counsel for Elgar Parishad accused Hany Babu’s wife, Dr Yug Choudhry, to have faith and trust in the court and to avoid casting aspersions on the orders being issued, permitted the Delhi University associate professor to continue to remain in Breach Candy Hospital till June 15

The Bombay high court (HC) while asking the counsel for Elgar Parishad accused Hany Babu’s wife, Dr Yug Choudhry, to have faith and trust in the court and to avoid casting aspersions on the orders being issued, permitted the Delhi University associate professor to continue to remain in Breach Candy Hospital till June 15.

HT Image

After the hospital’s health status report recommended Babu’s discharge, the court was going to order for his transfer to state-run Sir JJ Hospital, but on the insistence of Dr Choudhry that he be allowed to stay in the private hospital as the medical report indicated a swelling in his optic nerve which required an MRI scan and other tests after a few days, the court permitted the same. HC permitted Babu’s wife Jenny Roweena and other family members to visit the accused as per hospital protocols, and sought a health status report of Babu by June 14 and posted further hearing to June 15. A division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice Abhay Ahuja, while hearing the petition filed by Roweena seeking bail for Babu on medical grounds or shifting to a private hospital to treat an eye infection, was informed by Dr Choudhry that though the hospital had stated in its report that Babu was ready to be discharged, he should be allowed to be put under house arrest rather than being sent to Taloja jail as he had just recovered from Covid-19.

However, the bench was not willing to hear Dr Choudhry and said it took cognisance of a news article written by him or someone from his team in which aspersions were cast on the order passed by the bench in relation to the application by another Elgar Parishad accused.

Dr Choudhry objected to it and said that though he had not written the article, he or his team had the right to freedom of speech. The bench said it was not taking offence to the article but wanted the advocates to understand that orders were being passed after due diligence.