Photo Credit: Hanif Sindhi, Mail Today 

The total number of people convicted in the case now stands at 15 including Babu Bajrangi whose conviction was upheld. Earlier 12 people had been convicted On Friday, the Gujarat HC reversed the acquittals of three others. The court upheld the conviction of Babu Bajrangi. Suresh a.k.a Richard Charra has also been found guilty. Charra had been accused of rape and had earlier offered the ridiculous defence that he could not have raped a Muslim woman as he was married to one! Meanwhile, Kodnani’s personal assistant KS Chabda was also acquitted.
 
What happened in Naroda Patiya
 
On February 28, 2002, a mob of nearly 5000 people stabbed, burnt alive, looted, raped and sexually assaulted the residents of Naroda Patiya, a mostly Muslim neighbourhood in the suburbs of Ahmedabad. The mob comprised members of Bajrang Dal and the carnage lasted over 10 hours during a ‘bandh’ call given by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in wake of the Godhra Train Burning incident. Official death toll in the Naroda Patiya case stands at 97.
 
A Special Investigation Team had said that a day after the Godhra incident, Maya Kodnani incited mobs and was seen at the spot by 11 witnesses. Witnesses had told the court that she handed out swords to rioters, exhorted them to attack Muslims and at one point fired a pistol. Even phone records placed Kodnani in Naroda at the time of the incident.
 
How the case progressed
 
A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to investigate various Gujarat riots cases. Special judge Jyotsna Yagnik had convicted 31 others along with Maya Kodnani on August 29, 2012. 29 people were acquitted for lack of evidence. Babu Bajrangi was first awarded life sentence, but this was later commuted to 21 years in prison. Maya Kodnani was granted bail due to ill health in 2014. The convicts appealed the case in the Gujarat High Court where hearing concluded in August 2017.
 
You can read more about the August 2012 Naroda Patiya judgment here.
 
The Gujarat HC judgment
 
The Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani stating they found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy in the riots. The HC noted that none of the 11 witnesses had named Kodnani when the case was being registered. “Eleven witnesses gave different statements on Maya Kodnani’s presence at the location, there were contradictions,” said special public prosecutor Prashant Desai. 
 
Advocate Suhel Tirmizi says, “This acquittal is worth challenging and we have sufficient material against Maya Kodnani. We hope and wish victims’ families and survivors would approach the Supreme Court with CJP and appeal against this judgment.” Tirmizi also said that the SC rejected not only a demand for compensation for the victims but also the demand for further investigation in the case.
 

The post Naroda Patiya Case: Guj HC lets Maya Kodnani walk free, Babu Bajrangi stays behind bars appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Naroda Patiya and Gulberg, are, arguably, two of the two worst incidents of the reprisal killings that rocked the state as bodies of the Godhra mass arson victims were given to VHP strongman Jaideep Patel and thereafter paraded in angry processions in Ahmedabad and elsewhere. Three hundred such incidents were clocked in 19 of the state’s 25 districts.

On that day, August 29, 2012, women survivors and witnesses, who had testified bravely in the face of stiff threats, intimidation and opposition, haield the verdict. Will justice prevail yet again? Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has represented the survivors. Counsel for the SIT has been Prashant Desai before the court. In all 32 persons had been convicted including former BJP MLA and minister in the Narendra Modi cabinet, Smt Maya Kodnani, Babu Bajrangi, Bipin Panchal, Ashok Sindhi and Kishan Korani (sitting corporator, accused No 20) have  been convicted. Twenty-nine of the accused were acquitted.CJP  has argued against the acquittals too before the Gujarat High Court.

In the interim five years, through controversial decisions, former BJP MLA and former minister (she was elevated after the carnage by then chief minister Narendra Modi to the berth) was granted bail, first by the High Court and then this was confirmed by the Supreme Court. It was only CJP for the survivors that had contested the grant of bail to this powerful accused.

The over 1,900 page judgement of Judge Jyotsnana Yagnik (that may be read here) has been hailed for its thorough expolaration of the contours of criminal law jurisprudence, especially related to criminal conspiracy, fair investigation, Sting Operation as Corrobrative evidence. The SIT invesigation came up for sharp reprimand especially in the matter of not investigating the phone call records of powerful accused and policemen.

Most of the accused have been charged with Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 with 149, 295, 427, 435, 436, 440, 153, 153a, 153a(ii), 323-326,302, 307 (attempt to murder) read with 149 read with 120(b) and BP Act 135(1). Accused No 22 Suresh Langda Chara has also been convicted under Sections 354 and 376 (sections that deal with rape and gender violence). Maya Kodnani was convicted under Sections 295, 427, 435, 436, 440, 153, 153a, 153a(ii), 323, 324, 325, 326, 302, 307, 120-B of the IPC. Babu Bajrangi has been convicted under sections 143, 144, 147, 148 with 149, 295, 427, 435, 436, 440, 153, 153a, 153a(ii), 323,324,325,326, 302, 307 read with 149 read with 120-B.

The raw courage of the victim witnesses, especially women witnesses who deposed fearlessly while still residing in Naroda Patiya is a reflection of the confidence generated after the Supreme Court monitoring and the protection from Central Paramilitary forces provided by the Supreme Court. CJP had applied to the apex court for protection of eye witnesses. CJP through its legal team advocates provided legal aid to about 70 eyewitnesses since 2009.
 
Eleven eyewitnesses had deposed in eye witnesses testimonies assigning in detail the role played by Smt Maya Kodnani, in inciting the mob to murder, fifteen witnesses deposed through eye witness testimonies against Babu Bajrangi, 48 witnesses testified to the crimes committed by Suresh @ Langda Chara including the offences of gender violence and rape. It was the genuine evidence, given under much therat and intimidation, given by eye witness testimonies that enabled convictions. Corroborative evidence was provided through the phone call records provided by police officer Rahul Sharma and Tehelka’s Operation Kalank. Without eye witness testimonies whoever convictions could not have taken place.
 
Victim witnesses supported by CJP had also filed separate applications under Section 319 praying for police officer and then first PI KK Mysorewala to be arraigned as accused along with former Commissioner of Police PC Pandey and SRP official Dhantaniya. While the Judge rejected these applications, she has observed in the victim application for compensation for rape and gender violence that the application would be considered in the final judgement.

Also Read
Excerpts of Women Testimonies on 376 Violations (Gender Violence) Naroda Patiya Trial

 
Names of accused who have been convicted. Naresh Agarsinh Chara (accused 1); Murlibhai Naranbhai Sindhi (accused 2); Ganpat Chanaji Deedawala (accused 4); Vikrambhai Maneklal Rathod (accused 5); Haresh @ Hariyo S/o Jivanlal @ Agarsinh Rathod (accused 10); Babubhai @ Babu Bajrangi Rajabhai Patel (accused 18), Kishan Khubchand Korani (accused 20); Prakashbhai Sureshbhai Rathod (Chara) (accused  21); Suresh @ Richard @ Langdi Kantibhai Dedawala (Chara) (accused 22); Premchand @ Tiwari Conductor (accused 25); Suresh @ Sehjad Dalubhai (Marathi, Charo) (absconding) (accused 26); Nawab @ Kalu Bhaiyo Harisinh Rathod (accused 27); Manubhai Keshavbhai Maruda (Bhangi) (accused 28); Shashikant @ Tiniyo Marathi Yuvraj Patil (accused 30); Babubhai Jethabhai Salat (accused 33); Lakshmanbhai @ Lakho Budhaji Thakor (accused 34); Dr. Mayaben Surendrabhai Kodnani  (accused 37);  Ashok Hundaldas Sindhi (accused 38); Harshad @ Mungda Govind Chara (Parmar) (accused 39); Mukesh @ Vakil Ratilal Rathod (accused 40); Manojbhai @ Manoj Sinhi Renumal Kukrani (accused 41); Hiraji @ Hero Marwadi @ Sonaji Danaji Medhwan (Marwadi) (accused 42); Bipinbhai @ Bipin autowala Umedray Panchal (accused 44); Ashokbhai Uttamchand Korani (Sindhi) (accused 45); Vijaykumar Takhubhai Parmar (accused 46); Ramesh Keshavlal Dedawala (Chara) (accused 47); Sachin Nagindas Modi (accused 52); Vilas @ Viliyo Prakashbhai Sonar (accused 53); Dinesh @ Tiniyo Govindbhai Barange (Marathi) (accused 55); Santoshkumar Kodumal Mulchandani  (accused 58); Pintu Dalpatbhai Jadeja (Chara) (accused 60); Kirpalsinh Jagbahadursinh Chabda (accused 62).

 Eight charge sheets were filed in this historic case that lasted several months. It was one of the nine cases being supervised by the Supreme Court and was investigated by the SIT.
 
What did some key witnesses say?
Aminaben Abbasbhai Belim, prosecution witness number 52, testified with clarity about the incident occurred on 28.2.2002 and more particularly the huge mob gathered in front of Noorani Masjid. She had spotted accused No.37 – Maya Kodnani and accused No.62 (Kishan Korani)– her assistant getting down from the white Maruti Car, instigating the members of the mob by telling the mob to finish the Muslim area and she was present in the Khakhi Uniform, and she heard whatever stated by accused No.37 Mayaben and thereafter the members of the mob started pelting the stones, damaging the houses, etc.  This witness also witnessed the accused No.37 firing from the pistol like weapon and thereafter left in the car. This witness also spotted a truck containing gas cylinders and kerosene carboys that were used by the mob to attack. Members of the mob consumed alcohol and snacks on the road in the presence of the police before proceeding to attack innocents.

In her examination in chief, Aminaben had stated so that the truck containing the gas cylinders had arrived and members of the mob had access to the kerosene carboy, petrol carboys, had been drunk on alcohol and eating snacks, before they attacked innocents. This eye witness was herself hiding as she watched these horrific developments. She has also witnessed firing by leaders of the mob using a gun. She tried in vain to get help from the polive (PI KK Mysorewala refused to help though approached by this witness) control room from a local phone booth and this fact has been established by investigation. She was dressed in a khakhi uniform and this fact too was coorborated by other witnessed.

This witness also witnessed the incident of the killing of the family members of a Muslim Watchman near Mahavir Hall as well as the killing of Vermaji, wrongly believed to be the Muslim person and thereafter she went to hide herself at under construction building of Yasinbhai and thereafter took shelter in the house of daughter of Mohmedhusein where she stayed there for 2 hours wherein she witnessed the incident of ransacking of her house as well as from the Masjid Chali she witnessed the incident of accused No.44 – Bipinbhai resorting to the firing from the terrace of his garage.

This witness also stated to have witnessed the S.R.P. personnel ransacking and looting cash and other valuables from the households of Muslims. Since she could not trace her son Naeem she remained in the Masjid Ni Chali for the whole night and reached the Shah Alam camp the next day around 5 p.m. in a police vehicle.
 
In the appeal filed in the Gujarat high court, the high profile defence counsel attempted to bring the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of this witness.

Another prosecution witness (no 104) Mohammad Salim Mohammad Hussain Shaikh, a resident of Husseinnagar in Naroda Patiya has also beene explicit in his tetsimony. He has specifically narrated how the mob was allowed to gather at about 9 to 9.30 AM while he was drinking tea at Milan Hotel.  He has spotted and identified many of the accused being armed with lethal weapons in the mob of 1500 persons. In panic, he informed his brother, ran to his home in the chawl and then went out on the road: there he again spotted the mob led by many accused persons wherein A/37 Maya Kodnani came in a Maruti fronti car, interacted with A/20, A/2 and A/41 from among the mob, thereafter called upon the mob to come near to her, said something to the mob and thereafter left in her car. According to this witnessed testimony, it was after this instruction and visit by Kodnani that the mob launched an assaulted on the Muslim area and two persons have lost their lives in the private firing. This witness then took shelter in the SRP Headquarters by about t 10.30 to 11.00 AM.  Hispresence at the spot in the morning where he identifies four accused from the mob was established. The defence tried to discredit the witness by accusing him of exaggerating numbers in the mob (20-25,000) as appears in his statement before the Ahmedabad Crime Branch. He clearly stated that this was not a figure given to the Crime Branch by him at all. The investigation by the Crime Branch has been criticised for its unprofessionalism. In April 2002, in a controversial decision the Ahmedabad police had transferrd the investigation to the Crime Branch (officers Tarun Barot and NK Amin). During the cross examination, the defence has admitted to the presence of Maya Kodnani at the spot but construed it as ‘concern for her voters’ that had brought her there and tried to give a further twist to say that she was in fact instructing the police to come to the aid of the Muslims being targeted!

A third witness (PW 156)Abdul Majid lost his wife and eight children in the ghatsly Naroday Patiya massacre. He too has testified with clarity on then BJP MLA, Maya Kodnani coming to the spot after the mob had gathered at Kubernagar and Krishnanagar armed with lethal weapons. Kodnani, according to this eye witness account, comes with police cars from which three large black boxes were taken out.  Kodnani is then supposed to have instigated the mob because arson attacks started. Two persons, both Muslims, Abid and Hasan Qureshi got injured in the firing by Muslims. One Khadir, autorickshaw driver was killed near public toilets of jawannagar chawl.
 
Another witness, prosecution witness number 192, RashidaBanuImtiyaz HusseinMomin was also key to the prosecution. Her family runs a small grocery shop at Husseinnagar. She testified on what what she saw when she went to the tea stall around 7.30- 8 a.m. so that her son Imran could go for breakfast. Police insisted that they shut the shop due to the VHP’s call for a Gujarat bandh. Just at the time they were proceeding to close the establishment and bring their possessions to their home, at Gali No.1, around this time this witness had gone to the corner of S.T. workshop and spotted two sets of mobs coming from Nataraj hotel side and Krishnanagar side. The members of both the mobs were pelting the stones towards them as well as Noorani Masjid and in that scuffle this witness identified accused No.37,MayabenKodnani, accused No.41,ManojVideowala, accused No.44,BipinAutowala, accused No.58, SantoshDudhwala, accused No.1, NareshChhara, accused No.22, Suresh Langada and his brother and accused Gudduchhara (since deceased), while accused No.37 was reportedly heard by the witness saying that ‘march ahead and kill them’. In this way, this witness testified to the former MLA instigating the members of the mob. She was also witness to criminal activities of the mob, how members of the mob slowly progressed towards them and first of all the witness went on the terrace of her own house wherein she spotted the members of the mob assaulting upon victims and hence she came down from her house and she took her children and reached a safer place at Pinjara’s terrace. She sustained injuries from a hockey stick as she fled to escape and her daughter  Shamimbanu also received injuries from burns. Thereafter she also witnessed, from the terrace of Ramzanibhai that the members of the mob were engaged in arson, assaulting and killing and hacking the Muslims and thus she along with others stayed there till 12.00 to 12.30 O’clock in the late night of Feebruary 28, until the police took them to the relief camp. Essentially, the defence tried to discredit her testimony through ommissions and contraductions but she stood her ground in cross examination.
 
SiddikbhaiAlabuxMansuri is PW 236 and this witness has, in his testimony, categorically stated about the presence of accused No.37, Mayaben in front of Nataraj Hotel at about 8.00 to 9.00 O’clock in the morning with his P.A. accsed No.62 – Kirpalsing and delivered provocative speech and excited the mob and soon after the leaving the place by accused No.37, the mob started pelting the stones, towards Noorani Masjid.  Further this witness has also stated that, in a second incident, MayabenKodnani in white Marutifronty car with Trax Jeep and met the other co-accused persons and distributed the weapons to them and immediately thereafter the frenzied attack re-doubled in its intensity.Though confronted in cross examination, this witness specifically sticks to his earlier version as stated in the chief in examination. The defence only brought out the contradiction with respect to the helmet worn by Accused-37 Mayaben which does not, in any way, so significant to discredit the version the witness.
 
Related Articles:
1.Witness File Application for Free Access to Papers in NarodaPatiya Appeal :Gujarat HC, December 2016
2.Maya Kodnani Appeal: 7th Judge Recuses, Why was Advocate Engaged at the Last Minute asks HC
3.Justice Delivered, The NarodaPatiya Verdict

The post This Day Five Years Ago, Justice was Done & a Former Minister Convicted of Murder and Rioting: Naroda Patiya Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 The decision to include a VHP man at a top level meeting at the Collectorate at Godhra on February 27, 2002 has been affirmed by then DM Jayanti Ravi, who has –in contravention to what she told the Concerned citizens Tribunal headed by Justices VR Krishna Iyer and PB Sawant in 2002 – also denied that the decision to hand over the bodies to Patel to transport to Ahmedabad was hers: she passes the buck to Mamlatdar, Nalyava. SIT, never known to get to the bottom of the issue is likely to obfuscate further by relying on the fact that the letter given to Patel by the administration was not ‘signed’ by him on receiving the bodies
 
Five days ago, on June 29 to be precise, M.L. Nalvaya, in 2002 executive magistrate (Mamlatdar) of Godhra, stated clearly in evidence before the special court appointed under the Supreme Court directives, trying the crimes committed on February 28, 2002 in the Naroda Gaam case that he had, on instructions of his higher officers ‘prepared a letter to hand over the charred bodies of those killed in the Godhra mass arson’ to none less than ‘Jaideep Patel, secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Nalvaya was brought ion at the fag end of he Naroda Gam case that has been slagging in the courts, as a defence witness.

Patel, is an accused in the Naroda Gam case, currently out on bail. Eleven Muslims were killed in Naroda Gam and there are 82 accused, including former Gujarat minister Maya Kodnani.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the SC has been playing a cat and mouse game on the issue of handing over the bodies of Jaideep Patel and the controversial decision taken to transport the charred victims bodies to Ahmedabad Iin the first place. According to the SIT, the letter does not have any signature acknowledging that the bodies had been received. The bodies were brought to Ahmedabad from Godhra and were handed over to the relatives in full public glare where funeral processions attended by hate-filled mobs of RSS-VHP-Bajrang Dal were allowed full reign of the streets and the cadres hurled inciteful slogans even as ‘curfew’ was apparently declared.

Nalvaya, who is currently sub-divisional magistrate in Dahod, said he went to the spot where the Sabarmati Express coach was set ablaze at Godhra railway station and, under the supervision of his senior officers, he examined the bodies and completed other formalities. Later, Nalvaya said, he wrote a letter that the bodies should be handed over to Jaideep Patel.

The fact that a controversial high-level decision, taken in the presence of the then chief minister of the state, Narendra Modi to transport the bodies of the Godhra Victims to Ahmedabad was taken at a meeting at the District Collector’s Office (around 4 p.m. on February 27, 2002) has been the source of key investigations, initiated by Survivors and Rights activists since. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the SC and headed by RK Raghavan was compelled to first interrogate the issue in the Zakia Jafri Case, after the SC ordered it to do “ look into the evidence” in April 2009.

Significantly, the SIT that was also tasked by the SC to further investigate and prosecute the Godhra trial itself, did not bother to look into this issue in the trial that was completed and judgement delivered in 2011. On being cross-examined by the Special Investigation (SIT), which probed the case, Nalvaya said he wrote the letter at the instance of his senior officers. He said the letter was not signed by Jaideep Patel and was handed over to someone else. He also said he did not know Patel and had never met him.

Ironically, the SIT has been playing a cat and mouse game on the issue of the 4 p.m. meeting at the Collectorate where also, Jaideep Patel was allowed to attend (on instructions of the then chief minister) and on the controversial decision ‘taken at the highest levels’ to hand over the bodies of the Godhra Survivors to a man from a an admittedly rabid outfit like the VHP, known to instigate communal flare-ups.

In the course of the Zakia Jafri Complaint and related investigations conducted by the SIT between 2009 and 2012, in her Section 161 statement dated 15.09.09, the then District Collector DM/Collector, Godhra Jayanti Ravi clearly states that at the meeting called by the CM at the Collectorate, Jaideep Patel was present. The then chief minister has denied this. Jayanti Ravi further admits that the decision to hand over bodies to Jaideep Patel was a high level decision. In a subsequent statement dated 26.10.2009 and 3.11.2009 she however blames Mamlatdar Nalvaya for this decision to hand over bodies to Jaideep Patel of the VHP. Nalvaya however in his affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission affirms that it was on the instructions of DM Ravi that the bodies of the Godhra victims were handed over to a VHP man. In the course of the Zakia Jafri Complaint related investigations, a crucial document, which is a fax sent by DM Jayanti Ravi to Gandhinagar informing CM/HM of the dispatch of dead bodies suggests that she was fully in on the procedure and decision to hand over the bodies to Jaideep Patel.

The statements of Mahendra Laljibhai Nalvaya, former Mamlatdar are telling. In his statement dated 28.10.2009 where he clearly states that it was “as per the instructions of Jayanti Ravi, DM and late BN Damor, ADM, Godhra that these dead bodies were handed over officially to Jaideep Patel and Hasmukh Patel of Vishwa Hindu Parishad. This he repeats in the second statement before SIT dated 3.4.2011 his affidavit before the Nanavati Commission.

Significantly, senior advocate, Raju Ramachandran in his Interim Report dated 20.1.2011 clearly states that

        “…7,  Another aspect is the fact that VHP General Secretary Jaideep Patel and Shri Modi were at Godhra on 27.02.2002. The statement of Jaideep Patel that he    
         did not meet Shri Narendra Modi at Godhra does not inspite confidence. This has to be examined as the Mamlatdar would not have handed over the dead bodies
         to a non-government person i.e. Jaideep Patel until and unless somebody very high told him to do so.”
 
The three volume report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal-Gujarat 2002 is arguably the best investigation on the Gujarat genocidal carnage of 2002. In its report there is a chapter on Godhra that makes for critical reading. Within this section two significant points made by the panel headed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and Hosbet Suresh (among others) are:

          “4.4. The chief minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi, accompanied by health minister, Shri Ashok Bhatt and other cabinet colleagues, arrived in Godhra  
           around 2 p.m. that day. After meeting the collector, he decided to take the bodies to Ahmedabad. It was the decision of Shri Modi to take the badly charred
           bodies to Ahmedabad against the advice of the district administration. Initially, the chief minister and his colleagues had wanted to take the bodies in the same
           train onwards to Ahmedabad. The district administration strongly advised against this for law and order reasons, after which a motor cavalcade drove the bodies
           to the Sola Civil hospital at Ahmedabad.

          ….5.10. A point to be noted is evidence recorded by the media, of ordinary victims of the Godhra arson, who did not wish to be part of any political project of
          "vengeance". The Times of India (March 3, 2002) quoted Govind Makwana, who lost his son Umakant (22) in the fire that engulfed coach S-6 of the Sabarmati
         Express. "I am extremely disturbed by what is happening in our area. I had pleaded with folded hands to all who came to my son’s cremation to restrain
         themselves and maintain peace. Killing other people is not a solution. Losing a son is shattering, and I want no father or mother to suffer from this feeling".
 
That the decision to transport the bodies of the Godhra victims –outside the jurisdictional area to Ahmedabad where communal feelings were allowed to grow – was not just controversial but a decision that ought or should be scrutinised has been clear. That it was a man from the VHP to whom the chief executive of the state decided to hand over the bodies, seals the claim that the decision ‘to take Godhra to the rest of Gujarat’ was not one devoid of serious mischief: a signal to bands in the mob for anger and reprisal to rule the streets and for innocents to be targeted and killed.
 
The Ghost of Godhra come to haunt us, Again.
 
 

The post The Ghost of Godhra comes to Haunt, Again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
This is the seventh recusal of a judge of the Gujarat High Court from this sensational case in which Judge Jytotsana Yagnik, had on August 29, 2012 convicted 32 persons to life imprisonment. The Gujarat high court on Friday took strong exception to the practice of involving a particular senior counsel in cases only to avoid a particular bench because, due to personal relationship, the judge does not hear cases in which that particular senior lawyer is appearing.

"When appearance is made by the senior advocate at late a stage, we wonder would it not have been better if the advocate had recused himself rather than request the court to do so," the court said.

The lawyer in question is senior counsel BB Naik. The high court noticed that though the appeals in Natoda Patia case were filed in 2012, advocate Naik appeared in the case as only as late as last week. The court questioned why the senior counsel was brought in this case at the last moment, and Justice Kureshi was requested to recuse himself on this ground. It has been a known fact the Justice Kureshi does not hear cases in which advocate Naik appears.

The court also noticed that the Naroda Patia case has a history of "several learned judges of this Court recusing themselves from hearing due to one reason or the other." The judges on Friday made it clear that when a large number of litigants are involved in cases like Naroda Patia riots, many advocates would be representing them. "Somewhere or the other, it is bound to happen that one out of the two judges may not be taking up the cases of at least one out of the several advocates appearing," the court said and questioned why advocate Naik had to appear in this case at the last moment.

2015 Mysterious Case of the Maya Kodnani Bail Applications
The bail applications of Maya Kodnani, once a minister in Narendra Modi’s Gujarat government, have taken curious turns ever since she filed the first plea in February 2014. She was first refused bail by the Gujarat High Court and then granted it by the same court in July 2014.

Witness survivors, backed by the group Citizens for Justice and Peace, filed a special leave petition challenging her bail. An elected representative in 2002, Kodnani was found guilty by a special court (set up by the Supreme Court) of not only being the kingpin of a conspiracy to launch a physical attack on sections of the populace in her constituency, but also of physical presence during the attack and distribution of swords to further it. Officially, the charge-sheet said 96 persons were killed in Naroda Patiya, the single biggest massacre of 2002. (Survivor groups have put the loss at 124).

Not long after, another round of drama began: attempts to speed up her appeal in the Gujarat High Court. The first such bid in April 2014 was objected to by survivors in the Supreme Court, as there were reservations about the manner in which the appeal was being rushed through. The Supreme Court listened and the hearing of the appeal was stayed for two months. Then on July 13, 2015 one of the two judges of the division bench assigned to begin hearing the case from that day recused himself, saying ‘not before me’.

There was more drama to follow.
 A two-member bench of the Gujarat High Court, for the second time, recused itself from hearing appeals in the Naroda Patiya case. This time it was not a simple ‘not before me’. Justices MR Shah and KS Jhaveri stated in open court that while, under normal circumstances, reasons are not given by judges recusing themselves, this time they were constrained to state that some of the accused had approached them.
This shows how far these perpetrators are ready to go to subvert justice.
 
Related Articles:
1. For the 14th Time, Babu Bajrangi Gets a 7 Day Parole: Naroda Patiya Case
2. Justice Delivered, The Naroda Patiya Verdict

The post Maya Kodnani Appeal: 7th Judge Recuses, Why was Advocate Engaged at the Last Minute asks HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Archived from Communalism Combat,November 2012  Year 19    No.168, Cover Story

The post Background – Naroda Patiya Judgement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2012 Year 19    No.168, Cover Story

The post List of Accused – Naroda Patiya Judgement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2012 Year 19    No.168, Cover Story

The post Quality of Witness Testimony – Naroda Patiya Judgement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Previous Investigation: Gujarat Police appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Criminal Conspiracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Sting Operation appeared first on SabrangIndia.