New Delhi: Counsel for the accused in the 2016 Una Dalit flogging case told Gujarat high court on Friday, July 15, that cow vigilantes did not know that victims “were not minority people” but Dalits.
“The niceties of this offence is that these are all Gau Rakshaks (cow vigilantes) under the impression that a live cow was being killed and the meat were removed. Nobody knew that these are the persons who were not the minority people (sic),” advocate B.M. Mangukiya said arguing for their bail, according to Deccan Herald.
Taking objection to remarks, Justice Nikhil Kariel responded, “That is not a good thing to say, trying to differentiate between two communities… not a welcome argument.”
To this, Mangukiya further said, “I know it… but this is what the intention appears to be. Therefore… nobody wanted to assault these persons knowing that these persons are not of that community.”
The courtroom exchange took place when the bail petitions of the four of the accused in the case – Rameshbhai Jadav, Pramodgiri Goswami, Balwantgiri Goswami and Rakesh Joshi – were heard in the Gujarat high court on July 15.
The case dates back to July 11, 2016 when a group of cow vigilantes assaulted one Balu Sarvaiya, his wife Kunvar, sons Vashram and Ramesh, nephews Ashok and Bechar and relative Devshi Babariya in Mota Samadhiyala village of Una taluka in Gir-Somnath district.
The self-styled gau rakshaks first attacked Vashram, Ramesh, Ashok and Bechar when they were skinning the carcass of a cow and accused them of slaughtering the animal. When Sarvaiya and others tried to intervene, they too were thrashed. The attackers then allegedly abducted Vashram, Ramesh, Ashok and Bechar in a car, took them to Una town and flogged them publicly before leaving them near the Una Police Station.
Also read: Two Years Later, Una Flogging Incident Victims Attacked Again
So far, the Crime Investigation Department, probing the matter, charge-sheeted 34 accused, including four policemen for allegedly distorting facts and not acting as required. Of the total number of accused, 30 are currently out on bail and the lawyer in question was arguing for bail for the remaining four accused. They were charged with attempt to murder, kidnapping, criminal conspiracy and under various sections of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Seeking bail for the four accused, Mangukiya said they had already been in custody for six years, which was more than the maximum punishment that could have been given in case of conviction, under Section 307 (attempt to murder) under the Indian Penal Code. He argued since the accused had already spent six years in jail and with the prosecution seeking 13 adjournments thus far causing delays, they were entitled to bail.
However, the government lawyer stated that since the four accused in question were indeed the ones who started the offence, and the trial was still ongoing, they should not be granted relief.
Advocate Megha Jani, appearing for one of the victims, Vasram Sarvaiya, too opposed the bail pleas. Jani argued that the four accused in question were indeed the ones who “set the tone” prompting the crowd to beat up victims before they were herded into a vehicle. They were taken to Una and on the way, they stopped the vehicle and attacked the victims again, she added.
Continuing to give details of the gruesome incident, Jani said that victims were paraded half-naked through the market, beaten up and handed over to police.
She said that unlike the offenders who would run away from the scene after committing the offence, the said accused handed over the victims to the police. “It is a classic example which needs to be prevented under atrocity acts.”
Justice Kariel, who concurred with advocate Jani, said “that the incident is quite serious” and that such “kind of vigilante justice should not be permitted”. However, the judge asked what special circumstances prevent the four accused from getting bail like the 30 other accused in the case.
In response, Jani said, “The trial is still not over, the victims are yet to enter the witness box. About 80 witnesses have been examined and the trial is at a crucial stage… the worry is the victims are yet to enter the witness box. They (victims) have suffered not only this humiliation, it has resulted in them (victims) not taking up this occupation thereafter… The entire family, which is dependent on this occupation, is out of jobs since 2016. Till the time every witness is examined, till that time, these four persons must be behind bars.”
The next hearing on the matter is scheduled for Monday, July 18.