[Breaking] Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court Dismiss The Plea For Seeking Interim Bail By Two Convicts

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, expressed strong disapproval, questioning the maintainability of the plea and stating it was “absolutely misconceived.” The court made it clear that no relief would be granted to the convicts, and the petitions were withdrawn.

[Breaking] Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court Dismiss the Plea for Interim Bail by Two convicts

NEW DELHI: On Friday (19th July): The Supreme Court dismissed pleas by two men convicted in the 2002 Bilkis Bano gang rape case, seeking interim bail while awaiting a fresh decision on their requests for remission. Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah and Rajubhai Babulal Soni sought temporary release until their remission pleas were reconsidered.

The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, expressed strong disapproval, questioning the maintainability of the plea and stating it was “absolutely misconceived.” The court made it clear that no relief would be granted to the convicts, and the petitions were withdrawn.

The Court questioned the plea, asking,

“What is this plea? How is it even maintainable? It’s absolutely misconceived. How can we, under Article 32, review an appeal?” The petition was subsequently withdrawn by the convicts.

Earlier this year, on January 8, the Supreme Court had nullified the Gujarat government’s remission granted to these convicts. The court determined that the remission policy of Maharashtra, where the trial occurred, should apply, not that of Gujarat. Consequently, the Gujarat government had no authority to implement its remission policy for this case, leading to the convicts’ re-imprisonment.

The Gujarat government’s contention rests on the Supreme Court’s May 2022 judgment, which directed it to consider the remission application of one of the convicts. The state argues that its actions were in compliance with this directive and thus, it should not be accused of “usurping” the jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra. This assertion comes in the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s January ruling, which set aside the remission granted to the 11 life-termers, citing the State of Gujarat was not the ‘appropriate government’ to decide on their remission pleas.

The Supreme Court’s bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justices Ujjal Bhuyan, highlighted the ‘usurpation of power’ and ‘abuse of discretion’ by the Gujarat government in its decision to release the convicts. This decision was deemed a nullity, influenced by fraud and misrepresentation by one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, thereby violating the principles of law and justice.

The court criticized Gujarat for being complicit in the early release of the convicts. Both the Gujarat government and the convicts have filed review petitions challenging this ruling, which are still pending before the Supreme Court.

Advocate Rishi Malhotra represented the convicts in the recent hearing.

READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON BILKIS BANO

Case Title: Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. Union of India and anr