Bilkis Bano case convicts’ release: Two had open ‘outraging woman’s modesty case’, one missed parole

Two out of the 11 released convicts—they were found guilty in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case and given remission recently by the Gujarat government—were booked and chargesheeted for assaulting a woman with an intention of outraging her modesty. Another of the released convict had been booked for violating parole terms.

However, these on-record cases were not considered by the Gujarat government before giving them remission, revealed an affidavit submitted by the state in Supreme Court in connection with the public interest litigation against the 11 convicts’ remission.

Also Read: Bilkis Bano case convicts got over 1000 leaves each from jail before release

State ignored recommendations

The affidavit also showed that the administration also ignored recommendations of several other authorities including a Central Bureau of Investigation judge and an officer, Superintendent of Police and the Collector of Dahod district, where Bano and the convicts hailed from. The officials had reportedly suggested against the remission, revealed the bulky affidavit Gujarat government filed before the Supreme Court.

Two of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah and Mitesh Bhatt, were named in a complaint filed by Sabera Patel in July 2020 at Randhikpur police station. Although Radheshyam Shah doesn't figure in the affidavit, in the First Information Report, Shah, his brother Ashish, and co-convict Bhatt were booked under various sections related to assault on woman with intention to outrage her modesty, intentional insult and criminal intimidation.

Also Read: 'Nothing wrong': Pralhad Joshi defends premature release of Bilkis rapists

Criminal intimidation case

The complainant’s advocate V B Labana told DH that Shah and the two co-accused had also filed a cross FIR against his client for assault, among other charges.

“The trial court has clubbed the two FIR together” and the trial was almost over, Labana said.

Giving details of the case, Labana said that Radheshyam Shah, who was a practising lawyer, had taken on Sabera’s husband Ayub as a client for a case related to a road accident claim. Shah had reportedly charged Ayub a few thousand rupees as his fees.

Meanwhile, Ayub died in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and Shah, who was also subsequently arrested in Bilkis Bano gangrape case, never fought the case. In 2020, according to Labana, Sabera’s daughter approached Shah at his home to talk about the accident claim case.

Here, Labana alleged that Shah, his brother and Bhatt, who was also present, filmed her during the argument, which led to Sabera filing the FIR, and Shah filing a counter FIR.

Outstayed parole by over four months

On the other hand, Gujarat government affidavit showed that convict Ramesh Chandana had booked for missing his parole ending date. He reportedly surrendered 122 days after his parole ended. The record also showed that his “two-month canteen and interview facilities were closed” while he was booked, and that he remained out of jail, on various furloughs and parole, for a total of 1,198 days.

The opinion by Hitesh Joysar, Dahod SP, included in the record states: “As the said prisoner (Chandana) didn’t surrender back to jail in time, police station crime Registration No-02/2015 under Prison Act 51 (a) and 51 (b) has been lodged against the prisoner. However, there (will) not be any objection if premature release is given to the convicted persons…”

BJP leaders’ ‘identical’ favourable opinions

Surprisingly, five members associated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, including two of its sitting MLAs, who were members of jail advisory committee (JAC) which allowed the premature release of the 11 convicts, gave word-for-word identical opinions in favour of the convicts.

The Godhra district administration had included “social workers” Sardarsinh B Patel, Pavan Soni and Vinita Lele—all residents of Godhra district and known to be associated with the BJP—as members of the JAC.

Two BJP MLAs—Suman P Chauhan from Kalol in Panchmahal district and CK Raolji from Godhra—were also members along with District Collector Sujal Mayatra, Principal District and Sessions Judge J C Joshi, District Superintendent of Police Himanshu Solanki, Superintendent of Godhra sub-jail M N Rathva, and District Social Defence Officer JH Lakhara.

While the rest of the members recorded their opinions differently—albeit in favour of the convicts—the three “social workers” and two BJP MLAs gave identical opinions.

Each of these five members had stated: “1. As per the order of Hon. Supreme Court in Cr. writ Petition no-135/22 and according to the Policy of 09/07/1992, the prisoner has completed a sentence of 14 years. 2. District Superintendent of Police, Dahod, has recommended for premature release. 3. District Magistrate, Dahod, has recommended for premature release. 4. Jail Superintendent has stated in the Nominal Roll that the conduct of the prisoner is good and recommended for premature release. Keeping in view of the above reasons, I recommend premature release and this is my opinion.”