Cops challenge NHRC award in blasts case

T S Bhal, deputy commissioner of police (Central Railway), who was the then superintendent of police, Raigad District and is one of the officers accused, alleges that the NHRC had wrongly acted on a petition filed by a third party, despite the matter being sub-judice and the petition being time-bound.

This petition, he says, was filed by former Maharashtra chief minister, A R Antulay, in August 1994, to avenge the arrest of a relative, Sharif Parkar, in connection with the serial bomb blasts and the subsequent political repercussions for him due to the arrest of a large number of persons from his constituency.

Bhal claims that Antulay is believed to have filed the petition based on a non-certified copy of a complaint of the judicial magistrate, first class, which is pending trial in the court of the chief judical magistrate, Alibag, in Raigad district. Prior to this, Antulay had written to the Union government, which according to Bhal, clearly indicates that Antulay was trying to capitalise on the and to settle political scores.

Iqbal Haspatel and his son, Mobin, were arrested in April 1993, and were allegedly tortured by the Shrivardhan police on the directions of Bhal. Haspatel subsequently filed a civil suit before the civil judge, Senior Division, Alibag, besides filing a review petition before the Sessions Court, Alibag, against the judgement of the JMFC, Shrivrdhan. Another case was also filed before the chief judicial magistrate, Alibag, on the complaint of the JMFC, Shrivardhan.

In his review petition, Bhal says the matter should not have been entertained by the NHRC as per the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the NHRC (Procedure) Regulations, 1994 as the complaints were sub-judice.

The Haspatels were arrested in April 1993, after the Shrivardhan police during search operations found spindles in their house. They believed the spindles were “missile-type objects”, which could have been used in the bomb blasts a month earlier. They resembled “explosive-like devices” that had been found in a rivulet at Shrivardhan.

However, when the police concluded that the objects seized from the Haspatels bore only a deceptive resemblance to missiles but did not carry any explosives, they suo moto submitted a report for the Haspatels’ discharge under Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, from the main offence of abetment in the bomb blasts before the JMFC, Shrivardhan, on April 25, 1993.

Bhal claims that till this stage there was neither a complaint nor a representation from either Iqbal and Mobin. Even Iqbal’s wife, Jubeda, in the writ peition filed before the Bombay High Court for bail and discharge of her husband and son in the bomb blasts case, had not mentioned any excesses by the police during the raid at the Haspatels’ residence.

The then commissioner of the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) investigated the allegations against Bhal and other officers, and submitted a report to the state government on December 10, 1993. In August 1994, the government placed some of these officers under suspension.

In his review petition, Bhal states that 13 months since the officers were suspended, the state government without evaluating the evidence in the CID inquiry report, re-ordered a fresh inquiry to justify the action of suspension of these officers. Accordingly, the additionl director general of the state CID, on January 18, 1996, submitted the inquiry report to the state government in which he opined that no additional evidence could be collected as the initial inquiry had covered every aspect. Despite this, the state government had issued a notice for a departmental inquiry against the officers, to please Antulay and the NHRC, Bhal claims.