Magsitrate’s decision takes both defence and accused by surprise
Metropolitan Magistrate G M Patel's decision to turn the proceeding of the Ahmedabad blast case in-camera on Thursday surprised both defence lawyers and kin of the accused. For, it came three days before the scheduled hearing of an application filed by the Ahmedabad City Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) requesting the same.
Patel’s decision came at the start of a remand hearing involving 16 accused, including Mufti Mohammad Abu Bashar and Sajid Mansuri. Only advocates representing the accused, special public prosecutors and police officers were allowed to be present in the court.
Hashim Qureshi, representing six of the accused, said: “There was no need for an in-camera proceeding. This is not the trial stage of the case. Investigation is going on and no chargesheet has been filed as yet. No evidence collected in-camera at this stage can be made admissible at the trial stage. This has turned a public court into a private court.”
I M Munshi, another advocate representing the accused, said: “Though the court has discretionary powers to take such a decision, there was no hurry for this. The hearing on the application was just a few days ahead. Also, nothing untoward had happened in the court to demand it. The hearings were being conducted peacefully.”
Relatives of the accused see the court’s decision to keep the proceedings closed against the interest of the accused.
A family member of one of the accused said, “First, the court does not allow our lawyers to meet him in the absence of police. Now, we cannot see what happens in the court.”
Contrary to this, the special public prosecutors appearing in the case said the order was necessary as this is a crucial stage of investigation and also for the security of the accused as it is not possible to keep tab on all the persons coming in an open court.
The DCB had submitted an application under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on Wednesday, requesting in-camera proceedings in the case.
The DCB had cited security of the accused and protection of witnesses as ground for this.
Courtesy : www.indianexpress.com
Metropolitan Magistrate G M Patel's decision to turn the proceeding of the Ahmedabad blast case in-camera on Thursday surprised both defence lawyers and kin of the accused. For, it came three days before the scheduled hearing of an application filed by the Ahmedabad City Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) requesting the same.
Patel’s decision came at the start of a remand hearing involving 16 accused, including Mufti Mohammad Abu Bashar and Sajid Mansuri. Only advocates representing the accused, special public prosecutors and police officers were allowed to be present in the court.
Hashim Qureshi, representing six of the accused, said: “There was no need for an in-camera proceeding. This is not the trial stage of the case. Investigation is going on and no chargesheet has been filed as yet. No evidence collected in-camera at this stage can be made admissible at the trial stage. This has turned a public court into a private court.”
I M Munshi, another advocate representing the accused, said: “Though the court has discretionary powers to take such a decision, there was no hurry for this. The hearing on the application was just a few days ahead. Also, nothing untoward had happened in the court to demand it. The hearings were being conducted peacefully.”
Relatives of the accused see the court’s decision to keep the proceedings closed against the interest of the accused.
A family member of one of the accused said, “First, the court does not allow our lawyers to meet him in the absence of police. Now, we cannot see what happens in the court.”
Contrary to this, the special public prosecutors appearing in the case said the order was necessary as this is a crucial stage of investigation and also for the security of the accused as it is not possible to keep tab on all the persons coming in an open court.
The DCB had submitted an application under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, on Wednesday, requesting in-camera proceedings in the case.
The DCB had cited security of the accused and protection of witnesses as ground for this.
Courtesy : www.indianexpress.com