Uphaar tragedy: Ansal brothers surrender in court

New Delhi, September 11: : Real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal on Thursday surrendered before a Delhi court in compliance with the Supreme Court order cancelling their bail in the case of Uphaar fire tragedy which claimed 59 lives.

Ansal brothers surrendered before Additional Sessions Judge I K Kochhar at the Patiala House district courts.

Two managers of the Uphaar theatre, Ajit Chowdhary and Nirmal Chopra, also surrendered before the court.

All the four were directed by the apex Court on Wednesday to surrender before the trial court by 4 pm on Thursday. An apex court bench comprising Justices B N Agrawal and G S Singhvi had ordered their arrest after cancelling their bail.

The apex Court while cancelling the bail of the convicts had taken a strong exception to the alleged tampering with the judicial records of the case by the accused persons.

The bail of the convicts were cancelled on a petition filed by Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) challenging the order of the Delhi High Court.

The trial court on November, 20, 2007 had convicted the Ansal brothers along with three others under Section 304-A IPC (causing death due to rash and negligent act) and had sentenced them to two years imprisonment.

Seven others including Ajit Chowdhary and Nirmal Chopra, managers of the theatre whose bail was also cancelled on Wednesday, were convicted under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.

Others convicted under section 304 IPC were – Radha Krishan Sharma, Manmohan Unniyal (cinema's gatekeeper), Brij Mohan Satija, A K Gera and Bir Singh (all DVB officials).

The other three convicts -- S S Sharma and N D Tiwari of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and H S Panwar of Delhi Fire Service -- were also granted two years term as the offences were similar to that of the Ansal brothers.

Fiftynine cinegoers were killed in the blaze in the theatre on June 13, 1997 during the screening of Hindi blockbuster Border. The High Court had granted bail to the Ansal brothers and two other accused on January 4.

Uphaar case chronology

Following is the chronology of events in the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy case:-

* June 13, 1997: 59 people die of asphyxia in Uphaar cinema hall fire which broke out during the screening of Hindi movie Border. Over 100 others injured in stampede.

* July 22, 1997: Theatre owner Sushil Ansal and his son Pranav arrested in Mumbai by the crime branch...

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.

Crime proved, Is it not? by Paul Krist on 2008-09-11 18:46:22.023583+05:30
These people tried to remove incriminating files from a lower court to escape punishment. This alone is sufficient evidence and proof of their having confessed to their crime of killing too many members of the public with their gross negligence.

Reply Forward

AWARD R.I. FOR LIFE TO THESE MEN burning to death dozens and criminally trying to evade law by MMK Rao on 2008-09-11 18:42:21.214923+05:30
It is extremely strange, to put it mildly, that a case involving big moneyed people along with their men, who caused the gory death of dozens of people, with their utter recklessness of management and grave unconcern for public's safety in their cinema theatre, should be dragging along, for more than a decade. This fact MUST not dilute the degree of severity of the punishment that must be meted out by rigorous life imprisonment of the people who dare, even at this stage, to escape from the arm of the law by criminal methods. THE PUBLIC DEMAND THAT THE MOST SEVEREST PUNISHMENT BE AWARDED TO THESE MEN AS A DETERRENT TO FUTURE RECKLESSNESS OF THIS MAGNITUDE.

Reply Forward