Attempts made to delay trial: Police to HC on Uphaar tragedy

Uphaar cinema. File Pic

Delhi Police Tuesday contended before the Delhi High Court that every attempt was made by real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal to delay the trial in the Uphaar cinema evidence tampering case and now they cannot take the ground of old-age for suspension of their seven-year jail terms in the case.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, who was hearing pleas of Ansals seeking suspension of their seven-year jail terms in the evidence tampering case, said the digitalised copy of trial court record be placed before the high court before the next date of hearing on January 14.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing Delhi Police, argued that every attempt was made to delay the trial and repeated court interventions were sought so that the trial proceeds and now after conviction, the Ansals cannot take the ground of old age for suspension of their sentences.

The police had earlier told the high court that it has serious objections to the release of the Ansal brothers on account of the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and had argued that the nature of offence was such that it put the entire system in peril.

The court had earlier suggested releasing them on an interim basis given their advanced age and COVID-19 situation while asking the trial court to decide their appeals against the conviction.

It had also observed that even during the previous two waves of the pandemic, persons involved in offences for which the two petitioners are convicted, were released on bail in terms of directions passed by the Supreme Court and a high-powered committee.

On December 3 last year, a sessions court here had rejected Ansals' plea to suspend their conviction and jail term in the evidence tampering case by a magisterial court and refused to release them on bail.

Subsequently, the Ansals had moved the high court which had sought response from the Delhi Police and complainant, Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) in the matter.

Senior advocate Arvind Nigam, representing Sushil Ansal, had contended that the "mutilated" documents were not even relevant to his culpability in the main Uphaar trial and his conviction in the evidence tampering case was a "travesty of justice".

He had highlighted that Sushil Ansal was over 80 years of age and suffered from various ailments. Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gopal Ansal, had also argued that his client was over 70 years of age and the court should exercise its wide and liberal discretion to release him.

The court was also informed that in the main case of Uphaar cinema fire in which 59 people died, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to 2-year jail term by the Supreme Court which subsequently released them on payment of Rs 30 crore fine each after taking into account the prison time they had done.

While dismissing Ansals' plea for suspension of sentence till the appeal against the conviction by magisterial court is decided, the sessions court had said that the case was one of the gravest of its kind and the offence appeared to be the outcome of a calculated design on the part of the convicts to interfere with the course of justice.

The sessions court had also refused to suspend the seven-year jail term each to former court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and two others -- P P Batra and Anoop Singh -- in the case and release them on bail.

The tampering was detected for the first time on July 20, 2002, and when it was unearthed, a departmental enquiry was initiated against Sharma and he was suspended.

Later an enquiry was conducted and he was terminated from services on June 25, 2004.

The magisterial court had also imposed a fine of Rs 2.25 crore each on the Ansals apart from imposing a seven-year-term in the case.

The case was lodged on the direction of the Delhi High Court while hearing a petition by AVUT chairperson Neelam Krishnamoorthy.

The fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of the Hindi film 'Border' on June 13, 1997, claiming 59 lives.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever