Two acquitted in 2002 Gujarat Best Bakery case: What was the incident, why the trial was held in Mumbai

Officials visiting the spot after a mob attacked Best Bakery in Vadodara. (Express photo by Bhupendra Rana/Archive)

Later, the Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused.
The National Human Rights Commission then approached the Supreme Court. While deciding the petition and other appeals, the SC directed that there should be a retrial in the case, and it should be held outside Gujarat, in neighbouring Maharashtra, to ensure justice. A special court was then set up in Mumbai. The court concluded the trial in 2006 and found nine persons guilty of charges, including murder. They were sentenced to life imprisonment while the others were acquitted.

In 2012, the Bombay High Court acquitted five of the nine, while confirming the punishment of four accused.

Why was the case conducted against the two accused now?

Four persons, who had been acquitted during the trial before the Gujarat court, did not remain present before the Mumbai court which held the retrial on orders of the SC. While two of them passed away, Harshad Solanki (42) and Mafat Gohil (40) were rearrested and produced before the Mumbai court in 2013. Since they had not faced the retrial and were declared as absconding accused, they faced a separate trial. They had claimed they were not aware of the retrial.

Their bail pleas were rejected by the court in 2018 when it had observed that prima facie, there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them. After their arrest, the trial commenced before the sessions court in Mumbai only in 2019. The last witness was examined in November 2022 and following final arguments, the court reserved its judgment.

What was the verdict on Tuesday?

The sessions court acquitted Solanki and Gohil finding no evidence against them. The lawyers representing the two had submitted before the court that there was no specific role attributed to the two of them by any of the eyewitnesses, and hence it cannot be said that they had committed the offences of murder, attempt to murder and rioting that they were charged with. The sessions court said that the eyewitnesses during the previous trial had specifically stated the roles of some of the accused, on the basis of which they were convicted. It considered that there was no specific role attributed to the two accused to hold them guilty.

The deposition of witnesses part of the earlier trial was used as evidence against them as per provisions of law, since the case was separated on account of them being absconders. The court allowed them to cross-examine witnesses related to their identification as well as investigating officers. Since 2019, 10 witnesses were examined. None of them attributed a specific role to these two in the offence. The court also said that while Shaikh had deposed during the previous trial as an eyewitness, there were contradictions in her testimony, based on which she was charged with perjury, and hence her deposition could not be considered.