The Hindu : Arrest memo false, says Geelani's counsel

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 17, 2003

National

National

Arrest memo false, says Geelani's counsel

By Anjali Mody

NEW DELHI MAY 16. The `arrest memo' which records the arrest of S.A.R. Geelani, one of the three men sentenced to death for conspiring in the December 13 attack on Parliament, was "false and fabricated", Ram Jethmalani, counsel for Geelani, told the Delhi High Court Bench hearing the appeals in the case. Police had simply produced a document to fit its story, without any regard for the law.

The law sets out that police must prepare an `arrest memo' and have it attested by a family member or another independent witness, Mr. Jethmalani said. The `arrest memo' on the police files was prepared not at the time of arrest but at the police station, hours later. Although police claim to have arrested Geelani outside his house, they did not even inform his wife. Police say that they arrested Geelani outside his house at 10 a.m. on December 15. Geelani has maintained that he was arrested on the afternoon of December 14. Even the trial judge, Mr. Jethmalani said, accepted that Geelani could not have been arrested at the time stated by the police. He had, however, inexplicably set his own time for the arrest, disregarding Geelani's version.

Mr. Jethmalani said: "It is settled law that if an explanation is offered (by the accused) which is not intrinsically false, then it must be accepted. Especially when the alternative is found to be false." The evidence before the court showed that the police had followed none of the procedures stipulated in "civilised jurisprudence by which the world will judge us". Apart from the absence of a proper arrest memo, he had not even been informed of his right to legal counsel, prior to his being interrogated and being produced before a magistrate

Earlier the prosecution filed its response to Geelani's application for re-examination by the High Court. It denied the charges that he had not been given a proper hearing. Mr. Jethmalani said that in opposing the re-examination the prosecution would have to live with the consequence that any circumstance that had not been put to his client or not been properly put, could not be relied upon as evidence. The court said the applications would be considered after completion of arguments.

Today Mr. Jethmalani also raised the issue of the delayed application of POTA. While police say they made the arrests on December 15, they invoked sections of POTA only on December 19. Given that the arrests were for alleged involvement in the Parliament attack case, in which suicide bombers were involved and arms and ammunition recovered, "the meanest intelligence should have known that it was a case of POTA". The Judges, Usha Mehra and Pradeep Nandrajog, said they expected defence counsel to elaborate on this aspect of his argument since it had a bearing on the actual conduct of the investigation.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National