‘Attempt to delay trial’: Gujarat High Court rejects AAP MLA’s plea in forest official assault case
As per the FIR lodged at Dediapada police station in November 2023, Vasava, who is the MLA from Dediapada, and his relatives allegedly abused five forest officials and assaulted one of them on October 30 of that year.
The case arises from the ongoing trial before the additional district and sessions judge at Rajpipla. (Representational image/File photo) In a case of alleged assault of a forest official, the Gujarat High Court on Wednesday rejected AAP Gujarat working president Chaitar Vasava’s plea seeking the examination of “certain defence witnesses” at the closing stage of the criminal trial. The Court observed that the move was “but a last-ditch effort” to delay the trial.
As per the FIR lodged at Dediapada police station in November 2023, Vasava, who is the MLA from Dediapada, and his relatives allegedly abused five forest officials and assaulted one of them on October 30 of that year. The MLA also allegedly fired a round in the air to intimidate a forest officer.
In the oral judgment, Justice DN Ray dismissed Chaitar’s criminal revision application seeking quashing of a May 2025 sessions court order that had rejected his similar plea under Section 233 of the CrPC. The petitioner wanted an examination of the defence witnesses who had produced documents during the recording of their statements by the court. However, the petition stated that the matter was thereafter fixed for final arguments, and the documents “could not be exhibited”.
The case arises from the ongoing trial before the additional district and sessions judge at Rajpipla. Appearing for Chaitar, advocate Aum Kotwal argued that the accused had a “fundamental right of free and fair trial.” The plea contended that their “valuable right to fair trial has been compromised,” forcing them to move the Section 233 application.
The state opposed the plea, with the public prosecutor arguing that the petition was an attempt at “delaying and derailing the trial”. The prosecution pointed out that the accused had earlier filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling witnesses despite having categorically stated in their Section 313 statements that no witnesses were required to be examined.
The high court found merit in the prosecution’s objections and expressed displeasure at the plea having failed to “disclose previous proceedings” arising out of the same dispute. The court noted that the petition did not disclose the rejection of the witness recall proceedings by the trial court on April 20, the dismissal of the criminal revision application by the high court on May 7, and even the rejection of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court on May 19. The Court noted that these proceedings were not “even whispered in this petition”.
The court further observed that when asked to explain the omission, the counsel did not speak about “the cause for such suppression of averments”.
Rejecting the plea, the high court accepted the prosecution’s submissions, adding that the application was “clearly a second attempt in introducing witnesses at the fag end of the trial…”
The court also relied on the Supreme Court’s May 19 order, dismissing the SLP while keeping open objections regarding admissibility of additional prosecution documents. Referring to that order, the high court held that “it is always open for the defence to raise all these contentions in their closing arguments.”
The judgment states that “the apprehension of the applicant that his right to free and fair trial will be compromised is unfounded,” and rejected he plea.
The 2023 FIR, based on the complaint by a forest officer, has named seven other accused—Shakuntala, Jitendra, farmer Ramesh Vasava and his wife from Jhadoli village, and three individuals from Bogaj village. Two unidentified men were also booked.
Share
