Yunus, a 27-year-old Parbhani resident and software engineer, was arrested along with others for his alleged involvement in the bomb blast that took place in Ghatkopar on December 2, 2002. (File)
In the alleged custodial death case of Khwaja Yunus in 2003, the Maharashtra government has removed the special public prosecutor, who had moved a plea in the trial court seeking to make four more policemen stand trial. The government had earlier refused to sanction prosecution of these officers. The new prosecutor representing the government in the court on Tuesday sought disposal of the plea made by then special public prosecutor Dhiraj Mirajkar, citing that the issue is being heard by the Supreme Court. During the previous hearing on March 22, the state government had intervened, seeking to file a reply to the application made by Mirajkar.
On Tuesday, Mirajkar was informed at the middle of the hearing in court that the law and judiciary department had issued a notification on Monday canceling his appointment with immediate effect. Mirajkar was the third special public prosecutor in the case, which dates back to 2003. Since the alleged custodial death in January 2003, the trial court has so far recorded the evidence of only one prosecution witness, examined by Mirajkar in January this year.
Yunus, a 27-year-old Parbhani resident and software engineer, was arrested along with others for his alleged involvement in the bomb blast that took place in Ghatkopar on December 2, 2002. His alleged co-accused were acquitted of all charges subsequently by a special court. While the police claimed that Yunus had escaped from custody, his then co-accused, who was the first prosecution witness before the trial court in January, had submitted that he had seen Yunus being stripped and assaulted on January 6, 2003, following which, he was never seen again.
Based on the complaint of Yunus’ co-accused in 2003, an FIR was filed against the policemen. While 14 policemen were chargesheeted, the state government did not grant sanction to prosecute 10 of them. Currently, only four are facing the trial on charges including murder. After the deposition of the first prosecution witness in January, Mirajkar had moved an application before the trial court seeking that four more policemen be made to stand trial.
They are Praful Bhosale (retired as ACP Crime Branch), Rajaram Vhanmane (currently senior inspector at Dindoshi police station), Ashok Khot (currently senior inspector at Crime Branch Unit 5) and Hemant Desai (till recently a senior inspector at the Local Arms Unit). During the last hearing, however, the government, through chief public prosecutor Lata Chheda, had intervened, seeking time to file a reply on Mirajkar’s application. Judge V S Padalkar had said then that there cannot be two prosecutors in a case and granted opportunity to the government to make its stance clear.
On Tuesday, within minutes of the start of the hearing, Chheda informed the court that Mirajkar’s appointment has been cancelled. “The notification was sent by email to me. I was only told about this in the morning,” Chheda said when asked by the judge why Mirajkar was not informed earlier. Chheda told the court that as per instructions by the government, she was submitting that Mirajkar’s application to make the four men accused be disposed of, since the issue is being heard by the SC.
Yunus’ mother has filed an appeal before the SC against the Bombay High Court’s order accepting the government’s refusal to give sanction to prosecute 10 policemen. The SC is yet to hear the matter. Chheda on Tuesday told the court that she will request the government to seek from the SC a speedy disposal of the appeal. She also sought time to proceed with the case before the trial court till instructions are given from the government on her appointment as the new prosecutor.
“That is between the state government and you. Now, you are representing the state. After 15 years, we are at the same stage. It cannot be a case of justice delayed is justice denied,” Justice Padalkar said. He added that witnesses should be called for examination and the trial could be conducted on a day-to-day basis. The case will now be heard on April 19.
When contacted, Mirajkar said he has not been informed of the notification. He claimed that the notification was void of any reason and that since it was a contractual appointment between him and the government, he could not make any grievance. Maintaining that it was not unexpected since the government had intervened during the previous hearing, Mirajkar said: “When I took over as the special public prosecutor, it was not because of money or more work. I believe I moved the plea over the four men because it had to be done. I was just being true to my office.”
“The appointment of the special public prosecutor was at the instance of the home department. Its cancellation was also at the instance of the home department,” said Principal Secretary (Law) and Resident Legal Advisor, N L Jamadar. The instruction had come on Monday and no reason was given for it, he added. Before Mirajkar, R V Mokashi had resigned from the post in 2013 citing personal reasons. Yug Choudhary, who succeeded him, had resigned in 2015. Mirajkar was appointed in November 2015, based on the recommendation made by Yunus’ mother, Aasiya.