Ahmedabad: A man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act (GujCTOC), who was arrested in connection with the controversial Kishan Bharwad murder case in Dhandhuka, has informed a special court that he does not have faith in it and instructed his lawyer not to represent him.
Background of the Case
The accused, Kamargani Usmani, is currently lodged in Sabarmati Central Jail. He had previously filed an application raising multiple grievances against the jail administration and the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The special court rejected that application, and Usmani sought a review of the order. His second application was also turned down.
Allegations and Responses
Usmani filed an application last year alleging administrative harassment inside the jail, illegal interference by the ATS, denial of legal access, and sought preservation of CCTV footage. He also demanded an independent investigation, claiming that action should be taken against officials to restore his faith in the court.
However, the jail authorities denied these allegations and submitted that Usmani has repeatedly violated jail discipline and abused officials. On one occasion, he was found supplying documents to his lawyer that he was not permitted to send outside the prison. The ATS also defended itself, stating that Assistant Sub-Inspector Gopal Sharma was deployed at the jail to monitor visitors meeting prisoners accused under GujCTOC, UAPA, Arms Act, and fake currency cases. The officer remained outside the prison and denied any interference in jail affairs.
Court Proceedings
The court rejected Usmani’s initial application on March 11. He then filed another application seeking a review. During the hearing, he told the court he had no faith in it and asked his lawyer not to represent him in the trial. His advocate, M C Hakim, subsequently withdrew from the case, noting in his retirement pursis that the accused had stated he had no faith in the court.
Special Judge K M Sojitra took serious note of Usmani’s behavior, stating, “At the first instance, the court deprecates the conduct of the applicant-accused, at least to his submission made before the court through jail video conferencing that ‘he will go on hunger strike, he will not remain present before the court for trial and if anything happens to him during his hunger strike he will also involve the court’.”
The court further observed that the accused’s approach is not only contemptuous but also amounts to overreaching the due process of the court proceedings.
Court’s Decision
The court rejected Usmani’s review application and stated, “If no appearance is made on behalf of applicant-accused, the court will have to proceed as per procedure looking to the status of applicant-accused and other co-accused, as undertrial prisoners and legal aid through LADC (legal aid defence counsel) will be provided to applicant-accused.”
