Suleman Usman bakery firing: Trial begins after 26 years

The Asian Age.

Metros, Mumbai

The first judgment in this case came in 2003, when the sessions court discharged Tyagi and eight co-accused.

Suleman Usman Bakery at Byculla.

Mumbai: Nearly 26 years after the police raided the Suleman Usman Bakery at Mohammed Ali Road during the 1992-93 Mumbai riots, the trial in the case began Wednesday with the examination of a formal panch witness. However, the witness said he could not remember much.

During his testimony, witness Mohammed Farooq identified his signature on the statement but said that he could not remember much. Sessions Judge U.M. Padwand deferred the hearing till March 1 for identification of certain documents.

Farooq was the panch  witness for the spot panchnama prepared on June 1, 2001, almost eight years after the incident, and he was called as witness after almost 18 years. The panchnama  was drawn after registration of the case in 2001.

According to the witness’ statement, the police called him to the bakery and a maulana showed them a spot on the chimney which had two holes and said that the same were caused by bullets fired by the police. The prosecution also called a witness Salman Khot but the prosecution didn’t examine him. Public prosecutor Ratnavali Patil informed the Judge that Khot was not supporting the prosecution and hence, she did not wish to examine him. Following this, the Judge discharged the witness without examining him.

Eight persons were killed in a police raid at the Suleman Usman Bakery on January 9, 1993. The prosecution registered a case of murder, attempt to murder and common intention against seventeen policemen, including IPS officer Ram Deo Tyagi, now retired.

The first judgment in this case came in 2003, when the sessions court discharged Tyagi and eight co-accused. Additional sessions court Judge Pradeep V. Bavkar in his judgment observed that only those policemen in the raiding party who shot the men should face trial, while those who did not fire a single shot should be discharged. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Read more...