The metropolitan magistrate’s court on Saturday sent activist Teesta Setalvad and retired DGP R B Sreekumar in judicial custody after investigators did not seek further remand of the two.Setalvad was detained by the Gujarat ATS from her Mumbai residence last month and was brought to the city where she was later arrested by the crime branch, while Sreekumar was detained from his Gandhinagar residence and was arrested. Both were presented before the court which had granted the crime branch a remand till Saturday.As the remand period ended, the two were once again produced before the court of additional chief judicial magistrate. As the investigating team did not seek a further remand, they were sent to judicial custody.During the proceedings, Setalvad moved an application demanding protection within the jail premises where she also sought a separate cell stating that many of the 2002 riot accused, who are convicted due to the work by her NGO, are lodged in the Sabarmati central jail. The plea was opposed by public prosecutors citing that she is no extraordinary prisoner.Coming out of the court premises, Sreekumar showed the victory sign and Setalvad waved at the media persons shouting ‘Satyamev Jayate’.Earlier addressing press persons, officials of the crime branch had said that the two have not been providing any sort of support in the investigation, and the primary evidence against Sreekumar and ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt are the affidavits submitted by them before the SIT commission. The FIR filed by crime branch inspector Darshan Barad had mentioned observations in a judgment given by Supreme Court last month with respect to a plea filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the clean chit given to then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.
Activist Teesta Setalvad and former DGP RB Sreekumar were sent in judicial custody by magisterial court of MV Chauhan upon completion of their police remand on Saturday.The Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) had arrested them last month just a day after the Supreme Court upheld the clean chit by the SIT to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots.Their judicial custody will continue until bail is granted. No bail application has been moved as of now.While both informed the magistrate of there being no ill treatment, Teesta, through her advocate SM Vatsa, submitted an application seeking protection within jail. She cited the ground that during her work through the NGO (CJP), many were convicted, several of them lodged at the Sabarmati central jail where she will be housed during her judicial custody, and thus she apprehends harm that she may have to face if protection is not granted.Prosecutor Mitesh Amin and Amit Patel opposed the application submitting that she is “not extraordinary prisoner”. Magistrate court has reserved order on the application, likely to be pronounced within an hour.Setalvad and Sreekumar were held on charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery and other Sections of the IPC on the basis of an FIR lodged in the DCB by Inspector Darshansinh Barad, which quotes extensively from the Court order. Also named in the nine-page FIR, filed on behalf of the Gujarat state, is former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who also faced strictures in the Supreme Court order. Bhatt is already in jail in connection with another case.
The Gujarat High Court on Monday allowed an application filed by a couple seeking custody of their newborn baby girl from the surrogate mother. The court relied upon the agreement drawn by couple and the surrogate mother, before she conceived the couple’s child using IVF treatment, that the custody of the newborn will be handed over to them immediately after birth.The couple had approached the HC after the police arrested the surrogate mother and sent her to the Sabarmati jail for her alleged involvement in the abduction of a baby girl in February this year.The woman went into labour pain on June 20 at the Sabarmati jail and was shifted to the Civil Hospital where she delivered a baby girl on June 21.The jail authorities refused to hand over possession of the child to the couple and sought court orders. After all their efforts to convince the authorities failed, they approached the high court and filed a habeas corpus petition.
Gujarat High Court on Friday asked the state government to place the provisions of law that can allow custody of a girl born through a surrogate mother to her intended parents.Meanwhile, the surrogate mother filed an affidavit consenting to hand over the custody of the girl to the intending parents with whom she had drawn a contract of being surrogate mother. The court will conduct further hearing on the issue on Monday. The government submitted that it does not have any objection if the genetic parents meet the newborn.The couple had approached the high court as the Gomtipur police and Sabarmati jail authorities refused to hand over custody of the newborn to the genetic couple as per the agreement with the surrogate mother.Agreement & consentOn December 27, 2021, the couple drew an agreement with the woman who consented to conceive the child through surrogacy. She was to hand over the child immediately after the birth.The woman became pregnant and her treatment was going on at a well-known IVF centre in the city.However, events took a turn as the surrogate mother recently got arrested by Gomtipur police in an alleged offence of abduction of a girl in February. Her name was not mentioned in the FIR but it was allegedly revealed in the investigation.She was sent to Sabarmati jail after the interrogation. The woman had labour pain at the jail on June 20 and was taken to the Civil hospital, where she gave birth to the baby girl on June 21.
A couple has filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking custody of their 48-hour-old baby girl born via surrogacy. The situation arose as the police arrested the surrogate mother and sent her to the Sabarmati jail for her alleged involvement in the abduction of a baby girl in February this year.The couple approached the high court as the Gomtipur police and Sabarmati jail authority refused to hand over custody of the newborn to the genetic couple as per the agreement drawn with the surrogate mother. The court will hear the matter on Friday. The couple is from a neighbouring state and filed the petition through advocate Poonam Mehta. They drew an agreement with the surrogate mother in December last year to give birth to their child. The surrogate mother conceived after IVF treatment.However, the surrogate mother was arrested by Gomtipur police in a child abduction case. Her name does not find mention in the FIR but got revealed later.She was sent to the Sabarmati jail where she went into labour pain on June 20. She was shifted to the Civil Hospital where she delivered a baby girl on June 21. The jail authorities refused to hand over possession of the child to the couple and sought court orders. After all their efforts to convince the authorities failed, they approached the high court and filed a habeas corpus petition.
The JP Road police in Vadodara began a probe into the alleged suicide of a 25-year-old woman who was found hanging in the bedroom of her shared rental apartment Monday.The police have also sent for forensic analysis a video purportedly made by the victim, Nafisa Khokhar, at Sabarmati Riverfront a week before her death in which she is heard speaking about her heartbreak and decision to end her life.Police Inspector RN Patel of JP Road Police Station, which has registered a case of accidental death, told this newspaper, “We have only received the case late on Thursday and begun the probe… Right now, we cannot verify the video that has gone viral but the woman in the video appears to be the deceased woman. Her friend Shabnam, with whom she lived, has told us that the victim had jumped into the Sabarmati River at the Riverfront in Ahmedabad about a week ago and was rescued. She returned home and hung herself a week later, her friend has said. We will approach theAhmedabad police to verify if they have noted this attempted suicide as it would have been recorded.”Patel added that Nafisa’s friend has told the police that the two girls watched a web series late into the night and retired to their rooms in a “normal mood”. “According to her friend, Nafisa may have taken the step between 3 am and 9 am on Monday… The two lived on different floors of the house. Nafisa’s father is said to be mentally unfit and her mother died a few years ago. She had briefly lived with her sister and then moved out independently… But she was unemployed. We are investigating the trigger that could have caused her to take the extreme step.”Police said the friend has also said that Nafisa had been disturbed after her long-time boyfriend, an Ahmedabad resident, refused to marry her. In the video, a crying Nafisa can be heard addressing her boyfriend by his name, saying, “You have done injustice to me… We promised to marry and you forged relations with me but you dumped, cheated and betrayed me because everyone knows about us now… I love you more than my family. It’s been four days I am in Ahmedabad looking for you and you have just left, your family says…”Declining to comment on the video, Patel said, “We have sent the phone of the deceased to FSL and the report of the analysis will take some time. Meanwhile, we are probing the allegations and recording statements of those who knew her…”In March 2021, a woman named Ayesha Khan jumped into the Sabarmati River after recording a video about dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The court had considered Ayesha’s video as a piece of important evidence in the case and convicted her husband of the charges.
The Vadodara police on Thursday evening began a probe into the alleged suicide of a 25-year-old woman, identified as Nafisa Khokhar, who was found dead in her rental apartment on Monday. The police have also sent for forensic analysis a viral video purportedly made by the woman at Sabarmati Riverfront a week before her death, in which she is heard speaking about her breakup and her decision to end her life.Police Inspector R N Patel of J P Road police station in Vadodara, which has registered a case of accidental death, told The Indian Express that they only received the case late on Thursday and have begun investigation.“Right now, we cannot verify the video that has gone viral but the woman in the video appears to be the deceased. Her friend Shabnam, with whom she lived, told us that the victim had jumped into Sabarmati river at the riverfront in Ahmedabad about a week ago and was rescued,” Patel said. According to Patel, Shabnam told them that Khokhar had returned home and killed herself a week later. “We will approach the Ahmedabad police to verify if they have noted this attempted suicide as it would have been recorded. It will help our investigation,” he added.Patel said that Khokhar’s friend has told the police that the two girls watched a web series late into the night and retired to their rooms in a “normal mood”. “According to her friend, Khokhar may have taken the step between 3 am and 9 am on Monday. The two lived on different floors of the house. Khokhar’s father is said to be mentally unfit and her mother died a few years ago. She had briefly lived with her sister and then moved out independently…but she was unemployed. We are investigating the trigger that could have caused her to take the extreme step,” Patel added.Police said that the friend also said that Khokhar had been disturbed after her long-time boyfriend, a resident of Ahmedabad, refused to marry her. In the video, Khokhar, who is crying, is heard addressing her boyfriend by his name, saying, “You have done injustice to me…We promised to marry and you forged relations with me but you dumped me, cheated me, and betrayed me because everyone knows about us now…I love you more than my family. It’s been four days. I am in Ahmedabad looking for you and you have just left…”.Refusing to comment on Khokhar’s video, Patel said, “We have sent the phone of the deceased to FSL (forensic science laboratory) and the report of the analysis will take some time. Meanwhile, we are probing the allegations and recording statements of those who knew her.”🚨 Limited Time Offer | Express Premium with ad-lite for just Rs 2/ day 👉🏽 Click here to subscribe 🚨Khokhar’s death is reminiscent of an incident in March 2021 when a woman named Ayesha Khan killed herself after recording a video about dowry harassment by her husband and in-laws. The court had considered Khan’s video as a piece of important evidence in the case that saw her husband being convicted for the charges.
The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging a clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and several others in the 2002 Gujarat riots.Ehsan Jafri, a former MP, was among 68 killed at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002, a day after a coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra, killing 59 people and triggering riots in the state.Here’s a timeline of the events:February 27, 2002On the morning of February 27, 2002, a coach of the the Sabarmati Express — Coach S6 — was set ablaze and 59 passengers travelling in that coach were charred to death. The train had arrived at Godhra station in Gujarat just then. The victims included 27 women and 10 children. Injuries were suffered by another 48 passengers in the train.The train burning incident had within hours triggered violent riots across the state. The riots broke out on the evening of February 27 and continued for 2-3 months across the state. The Centre in 2005 informed Rajya Sabha that the riots claimed the lives of 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims. A total 223 people were reported missing. Tens of thousands were rendered homeless as well. The details were later published at the recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission.March 2008The Supreme Court constituted a Special Investigation Team to investigate the incident that caused the riots.June 1, 2009Trials in the case started over eight years after the incident on June 1, 2009.March 1, 2011A special SIT court convicted 31 people on March 1, 2011,out of whom 11 were awarded death sentences and 20 life imprisonment. The court also acquitted 63 people in the case. The SIT court concurred with the charges of the prosecution that this was not an incident of unplanned mob outrage and rather it involved conspiracy. The 31 convicts were convicted under the Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy, murder and attempt to murder.September 12, 2011The Supreme Court refused to pass any order on Narendra Modi’s alleged inaction to contain the 2002 riots and referred the matter to the concerned magistrate in Ahmedabad for a decision.February 8, 2012SIT filed a closure report in the Supreme Court giving a clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and 63 others, out of which many were senior government officials. The SIT said there was “no prosecutable evidence” against them.January 9, 2014Protest petition by Zakia Jafri against SIT’s clean chit to Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat communal riots was rejected by an Ahmedabad court. Jafri said she was not disheartened after the verdict and would appeal against it.June 2, 2016A special SIT court in Ahmedabad on Thursday convicted 24, including a VHP leader, in the 2002 post-Godhra Gulberg society massacre, which left 69 people including the former Congress MP dead. Thirty six others were acquitted.Zakia Jafri expressed her discontent at the special court verdict in the Gulberg Society case.October 5, 2017The Gujarat High Court upheld the judgment of a metropolitan court that accepted a clean chit to the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 60 others in connection with the 2002 post-Godhra riots, and rejected Zakia Jafri’s allegations that the riots were part of a “larger conspiracy”.November 19, 2018In 2018, Zakia Jafri filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the decision of the SIT. The Supreme Court decided to take up the petition on November 19, 2018. The plea also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, Zakia Jafri filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering “substantiated merits”.October 26, 2021The Supreme Court said that it wanted to see the closure report filed before a Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Ahmedabad by the SIT, giving a clean chit to then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 others.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal who appeared for Zakia Jafri, told the Bench, which included Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, that the SIT and the courts did not look at Jafri’s complaints and other relevant facts. He submitted that Jafri’s complaint was not limited to the Gulberg Society violence in which her husband was killed, and the SC-appointed SIT “ignored” evidence;October 27, 2021The Supreme Court-appointed SIT denied contentions by Zakia Jafri that it had not gone into all the facts related to the communal incidents, stating that it had “faithfully investigated everything”.“We will show you that we have faithfully investigated everything,” Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT, told a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar.November 11, 2021Zakia Jafri demanded that the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, which gave a clean chit to then chief minister Narendra Modi in its closure report, itself “should be investigated”.Appearing for Jafri, Kapil Sibal told Supreme Court bench that the “SIT was concluding contrary to facts. In fact such SITs should be investigated”. Sibal recalled that the SIT was set up because the National Human Rights Commission moved the SC, saying that the local police were not investigating properly. But the SIT also did not investigate as it should have, he said.November 16, 2021The Supreme Court asked Zakia Jafri how she could say the SIT “collaborated” with the accused when the team had filed chargesheets that ended in convictions in riot-related cases.“You are attacking the manner of investigation done by SIT. It is the same SIT that had filed chargesheet in other cases, and they were convicted. No such grievance in those proceedings,” the court told Kapil Sibal.The remarks came when Sibal said there is “glaring evidence of collaboration. The political class became collaborators. This is the stark story about collaboration with accused.”November 24, 2021The SIT told the top court that it had not shielded anyone and ruled that “uncharitable” remarks were being made against it. “We were not shielding anybody,” senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi told the Supreme Court.November 25, 2021The SIT termed as “absurd” the contention that burning of coach S-6 of Sabarmati Express train that led to the riots was “orchestrated” by Hindutva groups.“The allegation is (that) even before the incident, there were arms pile-up before February 27. It boggles my mind. Say I am a radical Hindu member of VHP and I am keeping arms on February 25 without knowing the date of the train burning incident, that makes no sense…” senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court.“Or you are saying this train burning was also orchestrated? That can’t be (true), because the train was delayed by five hours and was only going to stop for two minutes,” he submitted. “They could not have known…It’s absurd. There is a limit to what is being said here.”December 8, 2021Zakia Jafri told Supreme Court that she had not spoken about her allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the riots while deposing in the trial of the Gulberg Society killings case, as she was only a prosecution witness and not complainant in that case.Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Jafri, told a bench that being a prosecution witness, she had to confine her statements to what she knew about the particular case.“She appeared as a prosecution witness in 2010…. She was not a complainant in the Gulberg trial and was required to give evidence only regarding what was needed to be proved…” Sibal said.December 9, 2021The Supreme Court had reserved its order on the appeal on December 9, 2021 after hearing all sides.June 24, 2022The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Zakia Jafri challenging the clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — who was then chief minister of the state — and others in connection with the riot-related cases in Gujarat.The SC bench upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate to accept the closure report submitted by the SIT – which was appointed by the top court – and reject the protest petition filed by Jafri against accepting the report.The Supreme Court held that Zakia’s appeal was “devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed”.
The Supreme Court Friday dismissed a plea filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging a clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and several others in the 2002 Gujarat riots.A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar and also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheswhwari and C T Ravikumar, was hearing Jafri’s appeal challenging the October 5, 2017 Gujarat High Court order upholding the Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate Court’s decision to accept the SIT’s closure report, which gave a clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Modi and 63 others in riots-related cases.Ehsan Jafri, a former MP, was among 68 killed at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002, a day after a coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra, killing 59 people and triggering riots in the state.On February 8, 2012, the SIT had filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi, and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was “no prosecutable evidence” against them.In 2018, Zakia Jafri filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the decision of the SIT. The plea also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, Zakia Jafri filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering “substantiated merits”.Her plea also said the Gujarat high court “failed to appreciate” the petitioner’s complaint which was independent of the Gunbarrel Society case registered at Meghaninagar Police Station. The high court, in its October 2017 order, had said the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court.It, however, partly allowed Jafri’s petition as far as its demand for a further investigation was concerned. It had then said the petitioner (Zakia) can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate’s court, a division bench of the high court, or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.– With PTI inputs
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday issued notice to the state government, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and other trusts linked to the Gandhi Ashram, in response to a PIL filed by the great grandson of the Mahatma, Tushar Gandhi, taking exception to the government’s plan to revamp the Ashram. As the petitioner’s advocate was on leave, the court adjourned the hearing till August. However, the advocate general later insisted that the hearing be kept early. To this, the chief justice told the government law officer, “You give an undertaking that you won’t touch the Ashram.” The HC issued notice after the lawyers for Sabarmati Ashram Preservation and Memorial Trust, which looks after the ashram premises, brought to the court’s notice that there are many respondents in this case, but the court has not issued notice. They urged the court to issue notices. The court issued notices to all the parties including the trust, Khadi Gramodyog Prayog Samiti, National Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Harijan Ashram Trust, Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust, Harijan Sevak Sangh, and Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Ltd. The court posted a hearing for July 5. Earlier, the HC disposed of the PIL on the state government’s assurance that it is not going to change the core structure of the Sabarmati Ashram, but will upgrade facilities around it. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which asked the HC to hear the PIL on its merits. The Gujarat government informed the HC that the Ashram’s present condition does not provide for adequate information about it and the philosophy propounded by the Father of the Nation. The development project would highlight the Gandhian ethos of frugality and simplicity.
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday issued notices to the state government, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation among others in response to a PIL filed by Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great grandson, challenging the revamp of Gandhi Ashram under the Gandhi Ashram Memorial and Precinct Project. The court will hold further hearings next month.Earlier the HC had junked the PIL, but the Supreme Court has asked it to hear afresh on merits when the decision was challenged before it. The HC had dismissed the PIL by recording the statement of the state government that it is not going to touch the original Gandhi Ashram, museum and Mangal Kutir that are located in the one acre area while the development is proposed on 55 acre land surrounding it.Advocate General Kamal Trivedi had submitted to the court that an impression was created in the media that an amusement park was being created in the name of the project, but in the wildest imagination the government is not going to do that.The state government issued a resolution on March 5 to build a Gandhi Ashram Memorial and Precinct Project at the site of Sabarmati Ashram.Tushar Gandhi’s lawyer Bhushan Oza submitted that the project work will change the entire character of the historical monument. Another area of concern is the idea to attract tourists of the type who are not interested purely in the history and freedom struggle, he stated. Scholars visiting Gandhian organisations may find the new set up is very different from what was existing, Oza stated.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court (HC) on Tuesday issued notice to National Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Khadi Gramodyog Prayog Samiti, Harijan Ashram Trust and Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust in a public interest litigation (PIL) by Tushar Gandhi, great grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who is opposing the revamp of the Sabarmati Ashram.The notice issued to other respondent parties — the state government, Sabarmati Ashram Preservation Memorial Trust (SAPMT), Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Ltd and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) — were accepted by their respective legal counsels on Tuesday.Tushar, in his PIL, has challenged the proposed redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram by the government, both central and state, primarily on the ground that it is “diametrically opposite to the Gandhian ethos of simplicity and frugality, that the Ashram embodies,”His plea also states that redevelopment plans are contrary “to the conscious decision taken by erstwhile Governments in state and the centre to keep all monuments associated with the father of the nation strictly apolitical and completely free of Government control or interference.”The state in an earlier affidavit in April had submitted that four trusts which manage ashram precincts at present — SAPMT, Khadi Gramodyog Prayog Samiti, Harijan Ashram Trust and Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust — have “graciously accorded their consent to the proposed project”The state also claimed that the four have even nominated three trustees who have been inducted in the Governing Council of the newly constituted trust — Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust (MGSAMT).
