The Mumbai Session Cour tin the case observed and has acquitted two accused in the second part of the 2002 Best Bakery case in Gujarat.
In the present case, two accused named Harshad Solanki and Mafat Gohil were absconding when the other accused in the communal riots case faced the trial in the Mumbai wherein the same leads to the separate trial for the two accused.
The court arrested them in 2013 and the court began the trail against them in 2019.
Therefore, fourteen people were killed at the famous Best Bakery in Vadodara on 01.03.2003, wherein following an attack by a mob comprising over 1,000 people during the Godhra Riots.
However, Gujarat police in the case had booked 21 people on murder charges but in 2003, the Vadodara court acquitted all the accused. Therefore, the Supreme Court in 2004 then directed the a retrial outside Gujarat in order to ensure fairness.
The bench of Retd Justice Abhay Thipsay, then as the session court judge in the Mumbai trial found nine people guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment and 12 were acquitted.
The Bombay High Court in 2012 acquitted the five of the nine accused, and the court confirmed while confirming the punishment which is given to four of them. Thus, the court in the case observed and has then relied heavily on the testimonies of four eye witnesses during the trial.
In the said case, both Solanki and Gohil had faced trial before the Vadodara court but they were absconding during the retrial in the Mumbai.
Therefore, the court rejected the bail application in 2018 with the court holding that there was enough to prosecute them and the two claimed were not aware of the retrial.
The court in the case observed that the evidence in the earlier Mumbai trial was used against them and they were being allowed to cross examine the witnesses which relates to their identification. Thus, the Special Public Prosecutor Manjula Rao examined the10 witnesses.
The court in the case also observed that last year, Solanki one of the two accused wherein it alleged tutoring of witnesses in the trial and seek transfer of the case to some other Additional Sessions Judge.
Further, the applicant in the case observed and has raised doubt on the role of activist Teesta Setalvad after her arrest was being made by the Gujarat police and said that her role in tutoring of witnesses also needed to be probed.
The counsel, Advocate Prakash Salsingikar appearing for the accused submitted before the court that there was not sufficient evidence against.
Accordingly, the court rejected the application.