A special court in Ahmedabad has decided to dispose of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) case against Rasulkhan Pathan, also known as Rasul Pati, one of Gujarat’s most wanted terrorism suspects. The court’s decision came after 33 years of unsuccessful attempts by the police to bring Pati to trial.
Background of the Case
Rasul Pati, a sharpshooter of the Abdul Latif Gang, was initially booked in May 1991 following a raid on his house in Dariapur, where a revolver was seized. He was arrested in October 1991 and charged under TADA. However, he managed to flee and has been on the run ever since. Despite numerous attempts, Pati has evaded capture for over three decades.
Pati’s criminal history includes alleged involvement in the 1992 Radhika Gymkhana massacre and the murder of Rajya Sabha member Rauf Waliullah. Several of his associates in these cases were convicted and remain incarcerated.
Additional Charges
A decade after the original charges, Gujarat police indicted Pati in connection with terrorist conspiracies during the 2002 Gujarat riots. He is also an absconding accused in ISI conspiracy and Haren Pandya’s murder under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).
Court’s Ruling
The special judge at the city sessions court, B L Choithani, ruled that the case against Pati had been pending for too long. Despite multiple warrants for his arrest, the police had been unable to apprehend him. The court noted that the prosecution had recorded the testimonies of 16 witnesses in Pati’s absence. Witness statements revealed that Abdul Latif, one of Pati’s associates, had been killed in an encounter, and Pati himself had fled the country.
Judge Choithani remarked, “The accused has been on the run since 1993, and despite multiple efforts to capture him, he remains at large. This case has been pending in the court for over 30 years, wasting valuable time and resources.”
Court’s Final Decision
Given the circumstances, the court decided to dispose of the case, stating that continuing it indefinitely would be inefficient. The case was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning that proceedings could resume if Pati is apprehended. The court also instructed the city police commissioner to be notified of the decision.
In a statement, the court highlighted that the prosecution had the option to withdraw the case under the provisions of Section 321 of CrPC and Section 360 of the National Security Act. Despite this, the case had not been withdrawn.
Conclusion
This case marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle for justice in terrorism-related cases. While the court has closed the case for now, it remains open for future proceedings if Pati is found and produced before the law.
