Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has summoned the Law Officers Branch after expressing concern over the in charge sessions judge in Banaskantha district for “exceeding jurisdiction” while rejecting bail applications in the Padaliya village violence case and for issuing directions that went beyond adjudicating the bail applications.Clashes arose on Dec 25 between the tribal villagers in Danta taluka and forest officials when the latter went to the village for eviction and plantation drive. HC granted bail to some of the accused earlier and questioned the forest officials’ gesture that provoked the violence.After HC made observations regarding the authorities’ excesses, the in charge sessions court in Banaskantha rejected bail pleas of some of the accused and made sweeping and adverse remarks against the villagers. It ordered the copies of its decision to be forwarded to the district magistrate, the principal secretary (GAD), the chief secretary of Gujarat, and senior police authorities for “necessary implementation”. HC expressed surprise and viewed the sessions court’s order as potentially travelling beyond the permissible scope of a bail order.The sessions court additionally prompted initiation of action under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, against the tribal villagers. Justice Nikhil Kariel noted that the sessions court’s observations appeared contrary to an earlier HC order passed in April, which was placed on record before the sessions court. HC was informed that the accused in the case have approached HC to expunge adverse remarks from the sessions court’s order.HC granted bail to a former Border Security Force jawan, who was arrested by the police after the clashes. While passing the order, HC said that “the prima facie exceeding of jurisdiction by the learned in charge sessions court could not be and ought not to be overlooked by this court. Hence, at this stage, let a copy of the present applications be forwarded to the Law Officers Branch and whereas, on the next date i.e. on July 28, the Law Officers Branch shall remain present through a learned advocate as regards the observations of this court above.”
