Gujarat HC starts contempt proceedings against 4 policemen in Kheda flogging case

The court, following a request by the counsel of the police officials that they be permitted to cross-examine the applicants in the case, granted the police officials time to file an affidavit in their defence by October 11.

Last year during the Navratri celebrations, at least four Muslim men were allegedly detained illegally and publicly flogged by the police in Kheda “with a view to maintaining peace and harmony”.

The victims – Jahirmiya Malek (62), Maksudabanu Malek (45), Sahadmiya Malek (23), Sakilmiya Malek (24) and Shahidraja Malek (25) – had moved a contempt petition against 13 Kheda police officers.

Seeking compensation, the petitioners had said that the 15 officers, including Ahmedabad Range IG and Kheda SP, should be “punished for contempt and non-compliance” of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of D K Basu versus the state of West Bengal, which provides for guidelines to be followed by police during arrest and detention.

The four accused police officials are Inspector A V Parmar, sub-inspector D B Kumavat, constable Rajubhai Rameshbhai Dabhi and head constable Kanaksinh Laxmansinh.

Parmar was seen hitting the buttocks of Sahadmiya, Sakilmiya and Shahidraja with stick, while Kumavat was seen sitting in a chair and, in some screenshots, standing in the background. He was not seen with a stick or beating any of the men. Kanaksinh was seen holding a white pipe and pushing the applicants towards a van and also raising the pipe on Sahadmiya in one screenshot. Rajubhai is seen holding the hands of the three men to the pole as Parmar hits them.

Meanwhile, in response to Kumavat’s contention that he cannot be held liable for contempt as he was neither seen or with a stick or hitting/flogging the victims, the division bench refused to concur with the submission.

The court, in its order on Wednesday, observed, “Incident of flogging has happened in broad daylight before a crowd. Presence of (Kumavat) is not in dispute. (Kumavat) has not made any efforts that the applicants who are being brutally flogged in public view by other respondents are rescued, no efforts are made to stop the flogging. On the contrary, his presence in chowk with other assailants shows he accompanied other respondents and has played an active role in bringing the applicants to chowk from the police station and they were tied and mercilessly beaten”.

The court therefore said that there is a tacit consent by Kumavat in carrying out the illegal and humiliating act. “Hence no immunity can be granted to (Kumavat) from framing the charges under Contempts of Court Act,” the court held.

The bench additionally dropped the proceedings against 11 other police officers.