Four Gujarat ministers ``absconding'', says charge-sheet

Four Gujarat ministers ``absconding'', says charge-sheet
JOYDEEP RAY

AHMEDABAD, DEC 15: It may sound unbelievable but there it is: Four Gujarat ministers -- Minister of State for Home Haren Pandya, Sports and Youth Welfare Minister Mahendra Trivedi, Education Minister Anandiben Patel and Energy Minister Kaushik Patel -- have been named absconders in a charge-sheet.

The Navrangpura police have shown these four ministers as nasta farta (absconding) in charge-sheets filed against them for violating prohibitory orders issued by the city Police Commissioner in October 1997. Incidentally, five other persons against whom the same case was filed were arrested by Navrangpura police on October 21 and October 24 this year.

The notification for prohibitory orders was issued by the then Commissioner of Ahmedabad police P.G.J. Nampoothri on October 22, 1997 following apprehension of political violence in the city as BJP activists had launched a nationwide agitation over the issue of President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh. The notification prohibited the movement or gathering of more than four persons anywhere in the city.

But violating that order on October 22, about 400 BJP activists, led by these four senior leaders, gathered in front of the Handloom House on Ashram Road for a demonstration. Following this, some of the party activists were arrested by the Navrangpura police and the then Inspector M.P. Vaghela registered a case under Section 188 and 189 of the IPC against more than 90 party leaders and activists.

After dilly-dallying for more than three years -- though a chargesheet should be filed within 90 days of the case being registered -- the Navrangpura police noted in the charge-sheet framed on October 24 this year that the four ministers could not be arrested because ``they were not available''.

``We arrested five of the accused in the case and could not arrest the othersshown in the FIR as it is difficult to arrest ministers,'' conceded Inspector R.L. Chavda of Navrangpura police station who chargesheeted the accused in this case.

However, no senior police officer, including Deputy Commissioner (Zone-I), V.M. Pargi and Senior Inspector Navrangpura police station S.G. Gohil was willing to explain why it took three years to file the charge-sheet and also why the ministers were shown as not arrested. ``I do not have much idea about the case and till I get the details, I cannot comment on it,'' DCP (Zone-I), Pargi told The Indian Express.

However, a senior official who requested anonymity, explained the faus pax thus: ``Perhaps it has been done by police only to avoid the ministers being photographed like other general accused for police records and also to avoid humiliation for such big leaders.''

Incidentally, the others accused in the same case -- Dipak Bhatt, Corporator of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation; Amit Shah and Rajendra Shah, both Bharatiya Janta Party leaders -- were arrested on October 21, while Satish Patel and Manjula Patodiya, also senior party leaders, were arrested two days later.

When contacted, Haren Pandya said that ``absconding'' must be a ``technical'' word that has been used by police in the charge-sheet. ``We are all very much here. The police has its own language and the charge-sheet must have mentioned it like that. I don't remember if there is any such charge-sheet filed against me. I am sure even the other ministers are not aware of this.''

Kaushik Patel expressed his surprise when he was told about the chargesheet which showed him as absconding. ``Is it so? I have no clue about it,'' he said.

So what prompted the police to file a charge-sheet against the ministers after a delay of over three years?

``It was certainly not the intention of the police to prosecute them. In fact it could be part of the process to bail them out,'' felt senior Advocate B.M. Gupta. He explained that the case against the ministers and others could not have been withdrawn following a recent Supreme Court ruling. A charge-sheet, once filed, can be withdrawn only after seeking permission from courts under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code.