SC bail to 8 convicts in Godhra train burning case, declines to release 4 others
The Supreme Court dismissed the bail plea filed by four convicts after solicitor general Tushar Mehta underlined their role in the Godhra train burning case
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to eight life convicts in the Godhra train burning case that triggered communal riots across Gujarat in 2002 but declined to release four others including two men who were convicted for arranging the petrol and pouring it on coach S6 of the Sabarmati Express.
Noting the fact that most of the eight convicts were in jail for periods ranging between 16 to 18 years, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justice PS Narasimha said, “We are inclined to grant bail to the applicants having due regard to the period of imprisonment which has been undergone, particularly, since the appeals are not likely to be taken up for disposal at an early date.”
The eight convicts approached the top court early this year claiming that both the trial court and the Gujarat high court sentenced them to life for the charge of pelting stones and causing damage to the S6 coach of Sabarmati Express. A total of 59 people including women and children who were returning from Ayodhya died on February 27, 2002. The mob that gathered just near the Godhra railway station bolted the compartment door from outside, pelted stones and set the coach on fire.
The sessions court will stipulate the terms and conditions to be imposed on the eight convicts.
The eight convicts are Abdul Sattar Ibraham Gaddi Asla (18 years), Yunus Abdul Hakk Samol (17 years 10 months), Mohammad Hanif Abdulla Moulvi Badam (17 years), Abdul Rauf Abdul Majid Isa (17 years, 10 months), Ibrahim Abdulrazak Abdul Sattar Samol (17 years, 11 months), Ayub Abdul Gani Ismail Pataliya (17 years), Soheb Yusuf Ahmed Kalandar (18 years, 8 months), and Suleman Ahmad Hussain (16 years). They were convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code among other offences.
As regards the four convicts denied bail, senior advocates S Nagamuthu and Sanjay Hegde urged the court to consider the bail at a later stage as they wished to make arguments in favour of the grant of bail. Hedge even urged the court to consider their bail saying, “There is a festival tomorrow.”
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the submission, urging the bench to reject their bail plea.
“From one of them iron pipe was recovered while another was carrying a dhariya (sharp weapon in the form of a sickle),” Mehta said. He was referring to Anwar Mohammad Mehda and Saukat Abdulla Moulvi Ismail Badam. who have spent 20 years and 17 years in prison respectively.
As regards the remaining two, Mahboob Yakub Mitha and Siddik Mohammad Mora who have spent 20 years and 19 years in prison respectively, the government said they were part of hatching the conspiracy by arranging petrol at the place of the incident and pouring it on the coach. Mehta told the bench that it will always be open to them to renew their plea for bail at a later stage.
The bench held, “The IAs (applications) relating to the above applicants shall stand dismissed, at this stage.”
Out of the 31 persons convicted in the case, 11 were sentenced to death by the trial court in 2011 and 20 others were awarded a life sentence. In 2017, the Gujarat high court commuted the death sentence to the 11 convicts to a life term. The state appealed against the high court verdict seeking restoration of the death sentence and the same is still pending.
In May last year, the Supreme Court granted medical bail to one of the convicts Abdul Rehman Dhantiya after it was informed that his two daughters have mental illnesses and his wife suffered from a terminal illness. His interim bail was extended by the top court from time to time. Later in December, another convict, Farooq was released on bail after having spent 17 years in jail. He was charged with pelting stones.
The state had taken a stand that the facts of the incident revealed that there could not be a more serious crime than locking, burning and allowing 59 persons including women and children to be helplessly left to die. In October last year, when the court asked the state whether the convicts would be entitled to premature release under the state’s remission policy, Mehta informed the court that provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) were invoked in this case and this will make most of the convicts ineligible for remission.
