The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to eight men sentenced to life imprisonment in the 2002 Godhra train burning case, noting that most of the convicts had remained in jail for periods ranging between 16 and 18 years.But a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justice PS Narasimha refused to release four others.
”We are inclined to grant bail to the applicants having due regard to the period of imprisonment which has been undergone, particularly, since the appeals are not likely to be taken up for disposal at an early date,” the bench said.
The eight convicts approached the top court earlier this year, saying that both the trial court and the Gujarat high court sentenced them to life imprisonment for pelting stones and causing damage to the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express.
A total of 59 people returning from Ayodhya died on February 27, 2002 when a mob that gathered near Godhra railway station bolted the compartment door from outside, pelted stones, and set the coach on fire.The eight convicts were released on bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by the sessions court. This included Abdul Sattar Ibraham Gaddi Asla (spent 18 years in jail), Yunus Abdul Hakk Samol (spent 17 years 10 months in jail), Mohammad Hanif Abdulla Moulvi Badam (17 years), Abdul Rauf Abdul Majid Isa (17 years, 10 months), Ibrahim Abdulrazak Abdul Sattar Samol (17 years, 11 months), Ayub Abdul Gani Ismail Pataliya (17 years), Soheb Yusuf Ahmed Kalandar (18 years, 8 months), and Suleman Ahmad Hussain (16 years). They were convicted by the First Circuit Court in 2011 and by the Supreme Court in 2017, including under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
Four prisoners were denied bail and the court did not give reasons. The court order read:
“We do not intend to grant bail to the following applicants. Provisional applications relating to the above applicants will be rejected at this stage.” He argued that there is no crime more serious than allowing someone to die helplessly. When the Supreme Court asked states last October whether they were eligible for early release under the state’s warrant policy, Mehta said the case was under the now-defunct Terrorist and Sabotage Act (TADA). said it referred to the provision of Most prisoners were not eligible for amnesty.
