Bengal cites Rubaiya,IC-814 to justify its deal with Maoists

The decision of not talking to the Maoists unless they eschewed violence is a long-term process but when you are placed in such a situation you have to make a compromise, Sen told reporters at Writers Buildings.

We had to make a choice between getting the OC alive and freeing some Maoists, he said. When a plane was hijacked read Kandahar incident three terrorists had to be released to get the passengers back. It happened in Kashmir,too in the Rubaiya case. India is a soft state. We have seen these instances earlier in the 60 years since Independence. There is a difference between the Indian government and the Government of Israel. We cannot do what they can do, Sen said.

Asked why the police did not take any action when the OC was being released,Sen said: That would have been too adventurous.

Dutta was abducted on October 20 by armed Maoists who raided the police station and killed two officers,looted the armoury and a nearby bank.

The same day,Maoist leader Kishenji said that the OC would be released only if the government freed those arrested during security operations in Lalgarh and Salboni. He also demanded a halt to the operations.

While the government did not accept the second demand,it decided under clear instructions from Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to free the 14 women and eight men.

The Chief Ministers Principal Secretary,Subesh Das,who controlled the operations told The Indian Express: The government had to bend over backwards because it did not want to risk the life of the police officer.

Court records show how this bending happened. The 22 suspects were charged with offences ranging from waging war against the state to attempt to murder. Twice,they were refused bail when the Public Prosecutor had gone on record to claim that the government had strong evidence against them. But the government ate these words yesterday.

The suspects walked free they returned home to Lalgarh and Salboni today when they got bail from the Chief Judicial Magistrates court in West Midnapore. The Public Prosecutor raised no objection in fact,in a stunning U-turn,he said there was little evidence and that their custody was no longer needed for the probe.

So stark was the contrast that even defence lawyer Mrinal Choudhury said: What happened seemed impossible. They were slapped with serious sections like waging war against the state which is punishable by life imprisonment and attempt to murder. Even I was surprised that the district court granted them bail.

When asked about the U-turn,Public Prosecutor Chandi Charan Mahapatra said: I did not oppose the bail petition because it was not necessary. In case of the women,there is no evidence they are Maoists. As for the men,I said we had some evidence but that was not enough. Its immaterial whether I opposed the bail plea or not. Its the judge who decides.

Asked if there were any instructions from the government,Mahapatra said: I was not under pressure of any kind. On two previous occasions,we opposed bail because we thought we had evidence.

The case of the 14 women and one man Number 137/2009 dates back to September 3. According to the FIR in Lalgarh police station,the women allegedly attacked a contingent of security forces in Bansber village when they were under heavy gunfire from the Maoists. The security personnel could not fire back since these women,with bows and arrows,stood in the way. The FIR alleges that the Maoists fired from behind these women.

According to the second FIR,Number 78/2009,security forces were on night duty in Buripal village in Shalboni, when they were fired upon by Maoists. The seven accused,according to the FIR,attacked the security forces with swords and axes. The FIR claims the accused admitted they were deployed to protect Maoist leaders holed up in the village.