Gujarat HC stays summons to cops in Undhela public flogging case

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court on Friday stayed summons issued by a JMFC court in Matar, Kheda district, to six cops after an inquiry into the complaint of assault in the public flogging incident in Undhela village in 2022. On Oct 4, 2022, members of the Muslim community were flogged in public after a stone pelting incident at a garba event the previous night during Navratri. Videos of the incident were also circulated widely on social media.Aiyub Shaikh, the complainant, had filed a complaint before the JMFC court in Matar alleging conspiracy and assault by 13 police officials.After an inquiry, JMFC Narendra Kumar, on May 2, took cognisance of offences under IPC Sections 323 and 166 (for assault and for public servants knowingly disobeying the law with an intent to cause injury to any person) and summoned six police officials: LCB inspectors A V Parmar and D V Kumawat, head constables Kanaksinh Dabhi and Vishbubhai Harjibhai, and constables Arjunsinh Fatehsinh and Rajendrasinh Rameshbhai. They were directed to appear on May 30.The six officials moved the high court, arguing that the JMFC had not followed legal provisions, which require that before taking cognisance of offences allegedly committed by public servants in the discharge of official duties, they must be given an opportunity to explain. A report must also be obtained from a superior officer setting out the facts and circumstances of the incident.Their counsel submitted that the court did not follow the procedure in this case.After a preliminary hearing, Justice Gita Gopi admitted the matter and stayed the proceedings until further orders. The next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 17. In an earlier proceeding related to the same incident, the high court in 2023 held four police personnel guilty of contempt of court: A V Parmar, D B Kumawat, Kanaksinh Dabi and constable Raju Dabjhi, all of whom were seen in videos of the flogging. They were sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment. That order was later challenged in the Supreme Court, which stayed the high court's ruling.