Home > News > PTI
Guj police laxity in riot case, SC intimates order to PM
August 10, 2005 14:34 IST
Adding to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's woes over the post-Godhra riots, the Supreme Court has put a question mark over the role of state police in the Naroda Patiya riots case.
It has also expressed its displeasure on the issue to prime minister Manmohan Singh and home minister Shivaraj Patil besides the state Governor.
Taking serious note of the laxity of the Gujarat police to arrest Shashikant, a key accused in the Naroda Patiya case, a bench, comprising justice B N Agrawal and justice A K Mathur said "we really fail to understand in what manner the Gujarat police is acting. Either they are in connivance with the accused or thoroughly worthless".
Also read: The Gujarat Riots
While indicating that it would summon the Director General of the state police to appear before it if no satisfactory explanation was given for non-arrest of the accused, the Bench directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to 'the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gujarat as well as the prime minister and home minister of India.
The DGP, in his report dated February 7, 2005, to the court, had stated that action under Sections 82 and 83 (attachment of property of absconding accused) of the Criminal Procedure Code were being resorted to for apprehending the accused.
The DGP filed another report in March stating that proclamation under Section 83 of Cr P C had already been issued.
The court said 'a period of about 5 months has expired, but we do not know whether any action under Section 83 for attachment of the property of the accused has been taken or not."
It referred to a recent communication from the office of the DGP signed by the Additional DGP and said: 'curiously, no where has it been mentioned therein as to whether any such action under Section 83 has been taken or not.'
While posting the matter for further hearing on August 22, the Bench said on that day, an affidavit should be filed by a responsible officer on behalf of the state of Gujarat stating as to what action had been taken under Section 83 against the accused for attachment of his property.
This was followed by a warning. "In case no satisfactory explanation is furnished in the affidavit for not apprehending the accused, on the next date of hearing, the Court will consider desirabillity of directing the DGP, Gujarat, to appear in person," the Bench said.