Activist Sudha Bharadwaj who was sent to police custody till November 6 by a special Pune Court on Friday has demanded same facilities in the jail which the government has promised to provide to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya.
Activist Sudha Bharadwaj who was sent to police custody till November 6 by a special Pune Court on Friday has demanded same facilities in the jail which the government has promised to provide to fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya, who is wanted in a multi-crore loan default case. Bharadwaj was one of the five activists arrested by Pune police in a multi-city operation on August 28.
Bharadwaj’s lawyer told the court about her illnesses and sought proper food, medication and other care. The lawyer demanded ‘incarceration, bathing and toilet facilities which are on par with those that have been promised to be provided to Vijay Mallya by the state and central government’.
“The applicant must be provided with condition of incarceration, bathing and toilet facilities which are on par with those promised to be provided to Mr Vijay Mallya by the state and central government,” the application by Bharadwaj said.
The court ordered that the required medical facilities be provided to her.
Apart from Bharadwaj, the court also sent Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, accused of having Maoist links, in police custody till November 6. The two activists were taken into custody by the Pune Police Friday evening after the court rejected the bail applications of all three, observing that the material collected by police, on the face of it, shows their alleged links with Maoists.
Public prosecutor Ujjwala Pawar had sought a police custody of 14 days and said that the preliminary investigation has revealed that the three had links with the banned CPI (Maoist) and were involved in recruitment as well as raising funds for Maoist activities.
They were involved in “larger conspiracy to threaten the democratic set-up of the nation”, Pawar told the court.
Opposing the police custody, defence lawyer Rahul Deshmukh, who represented Gonsalves, argued the police in remand report have not mentioned that they need to recover any material from the accused. The material seized earlier is already in their possession for nearly two months, he said, adding “so there is no need for police custody”.