It is just a matter of hours now since the Bodh Gaya blasts and the Propoganda Modules are already abuzz. *Sanghi Terror* is an immediate justification for any such obfuscation. While it is extremely premature (or rather immature) to discuss about who could be responsible at this early stage, atleast Times Now has already started speculating about Indian Mujaheddin being involved. This will only vitiate the atmosphere. Similar would be calls for immediate actions. Next few days we can see headlines likes like *It is already 42 Minutes and 38 Seconds since the blast and no arrests yet*. This would only force the authorities to arrest few people to show progress. And this has two negatives – one, the investigation goes off at a tangent and two, those arrested falsely, become Martyrs (rightly so).
A typical tweet claiming Sanghi Terror is shown here and was tweeted within minutes of the blast. Some of those retweeting such tweets do not know the history of Hindu Terror in this Country. Indira Gandhi did not invent it but she made blaming Hindu Terror a fine art. Those were the glorious period of bashing Hindu Terrorists. Now the Congress fortunately has been able to revive it to a great extent and it looks like the Good Times will be here again.
To those uninitiated have a look at the Most Serious Hindu Terror case of the earlier era. From the time Indira Gandhi took over the Prime Ministership she was hampered by the old hands in the party. Soon the party split into two – the old hands called the Syndicate and the Indira Loyalists. The economy was also not growing – the *Hindu Rate of Growth*. this lead to general unrest in the country. The Bangladesh war was a diversion and the emergency (external emergency) imposed then was never removed. But the Allahabad High Court Judgement was the last straw on Indira’s back and Internal Emergency was imposed.
To avoid my prejudices creeping in will quote from the Original Judgement of Supreme Courts where ever possible. The first case is:
Supreme Court of India
Ranjan Dwivedi vs C.B.I Tr.Director General on 17 August, 2012
Author: C K Prasad
Bench: P. Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi
In the Supreme Court of India
Criminal WRIT Jurisdiction
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 200 OF 2011
Ranjan Dwivedi …Petitioner(s)
C.B.I., Through the Director General …Respondent(s)
The petitioners herein are the accused and tried for the assassination of Shri. L.N. Mishra, the then Union Railway Minister. It is the case of the prosecution that Shri. L.N. Mishra was injured in a bomb- blast at the Railway Station, Samastipur on 2.01.1975 and later succumbed to his injuries on 3.01.1975. The initial investigation was conducted by the Bihar C.I.D. and subsequently it was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, âC.B.I.â) who filed charge sheet on 10.11.1975. Thereafter, this case was transferred by this Court to Delhi vide its order dated 17.12.1979 due to interference by the then Bihar Government. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, after framing the charges, initiated trial against the accused persons but, unfortunately, the trial is still pending for the past 37 years. In 1987, the Petitioner(s) had preferred a Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 268/87 before this Court for quashing of the charges andproceedings in view of pending trial for over 12 years. This Court had disposed of the writ petitions vide its Order dated 10.12.1991 with a direction to the trial court to expeditiously complete the trial on day to day basis. However, the trial is still pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge despite the direction of this Court to expeditiously complete the trial.
The Judgement in this Writ Petition is:
24. In view of the settled position of law and particularly in the facts of the present case, we are not in agreement with the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel, Shri. T.R. Andhyarujina. Before we conclude, we intend to say, particularly, looking into long adjournments sought by the accused persons, who are seven in number, that accused cannot take advantage or the benefit of the right of speedy trial by causing the delay and then use that delay in order to assert their rights.
There is a related Writ:
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 205 OF 2011
AC. Sudevananda Avadhuta â¦ Petitioner(s)
C.B.I. through Director General â¦ Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
The related facts and the Judgement there is:
Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate appears in support of the writ petitions. He submits that delay of 37 years in conclusion of the trial, for whatever reason, is atrocious and a civilized society cannot permit continuance of the trial for such a long period. He appeals to us to rise to the occasion and make history by holding that the system which allows trial for such a long period is barbaric, oppressive and atrocious and, therefore, in the teeth of right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Systemic delay cannot be a defence to deny the right of speedy trial, emphasizes Mr. Andhyarujina.
I have given my most anxious consideration to the submission advanced and, at one point of time, in deference to his passionate appeal I was inclined to consider this issue in detail and give a fresh look but, having been confronted with the Five-Judge Constitution Bench decision in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and Seven-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, this course does not seem to be open to me. Judicial discipline expects us to follow the ratio and prohibits laying down any principle in derogation of the ratio laid down by the earlier decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court.
While at least in the first case the CBI has the fig leaf of accused delaying the proceedings in the second case it is CBI that is delaying. But why is CBI delaying the case? You can learn about that from another Judgement again by Supreme Court. remeber none of the so called Main Stream Media would bring this to your knowledge.
Supreme Court of India
Sudevanand vs State Through Cbi on 19 January, 2012
Author: A Alam
Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.6489 OF 2006]
SUDEVANAND … APPELLANT VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI … RESPONDENT WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.6625 OF 2006]
SANTOSHANAND … APPELLANT VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI … RESPONDENT AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2012
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.6800 OF 2006]
RANJAN DWIVEDI … APPELLANT VERSUS
STATE THROUGH CBI … RESPONDENT 2
J UD G M E N T
Aftab Alam, J.
The facts of the case are:
2. On March 20, 1975, at about 4.15 p.m. when the car in which Mr. Justice A.N. Ray, holding the office of the Chief Justice of India at that time, was travelling, along with his son Shri Ajoy Nath Ray and a Jamadar Jai Nand and the driver Inder Singh, stopped at the intersection of Tilak Marg and Bhagwan Dass road, at a stone throw distance from the Supreme Court of India, two live hand grenades were lobbed inside the car. Fortunately, the grenades did not explode and the occupants of the car, including the Chief Justice of India, escaped unharmed.
3. A case was registered and investigation was started by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police. But, as the police investigation did not make much headway, on June 30, 1975 the case was handed over to the CBI. On the same day, one Santoshanand Avadhoot (appellant in Criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) 6625 of 2006) was arrested followed by the arrest of an advocate, namely, Ranjan Dwivedi (appellant in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6800/2006) on July 6, 1975.
The main evidence in these cases was the Confessional statement of one Vikram, who later withdrew the statement saying it was extracted by CBI under duress. The same set of people and the organisation was found involved in the L N Mishra murder and both cases hinged solely on Vikram’s confessional statements. CBI accused Bihar Government of intereference in the case and had the same transferred outside Bihar.
Yet in the L N Mishra case:
It is curious to note that in the L.N. Mishra murder case Vikram was examined by the prosecution as PW.2 and in course of his deposition before the court he said that the statement made by him at Danapur jail was not voluntary but he was forced to make the statement under coercion and threats by the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and Home Secretary, Government of Bihar and the SP and the DSP in the State Police. He said in his deposition before the court that his statement in jail was made on the basis of a statement prepared and given to him in writing by the State Government officers.
12. Coming back to the appellant’s appeal pending before the Delhi High Court, both Sudevanand and Santoshanand were released on bail in 1986 after remaining in jail for almost 11 years. In 1997-1998, that is to say 11 years after coming out of jail, the appellants filed three criminal miscellaneous applications in the pending appeals.
Swami Sedevanad and Santhoshanand were lucky. They got bail in one case after 11 years. Most spent more than 20 years in Jail and then got bail. My understanding is after 37 years now, nobody is in Jail.
But what is to be noted here is: The Main Stream Media is Silent – A Silent Conspirator