The State and the convicts had moved the Court challenging the January 8 judgment of the top court which had cancelled the remission granted by the State government to the eleven convicts in the case.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the review petitions filed by the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case challenging the cancellation of their remission (early release from prison) [State of Gujarat v Bilkis Yakub Rasool and ors].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan also dismissed review petition filed by the State of Gujarat in this regard.
The State and the convicts had moved the Court challenging the January 8 judgment of the top court which had cancelled the remission granted by the State government to the eleven convicts in the case.
The State’s challenge was limited to the adverse remarks made against it by the Court in the January 8 judgment.
“Having carefully gone through the review petitions, the order under challenge and the papers annexed therewith, we are satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any merit in the review petitions, warranting reconsideration of the order impugned,” the Court said while dismissing the review pleas.
The case concerns the early release of 11 convicts who had gang raped Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 communal riots in the State.
The State had granted remission to convicts Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana.
The State granted remission of their sentence following a May 2022 judgment in which the top court held that an application of remission should be considered in line with the policy of the State where the crime was committed and not where the trial was held.
Pursuant to that judgment, the Gujarat government applied its remission policy to release the convicts though the trial in the case had taken place in Maharashtra.
Various petitioners including Bano challenged the same before the Supreme Court.
