Uphaar fire: Delhi HC reserves order on Ansals' plea seeking suspension of jail term

A trial court, in November last year, awarded the Ansal brothers--Sushil and Gopal--and 3 others, seven-year jail terms in the Uphaar cinema fire evidence tampering case.

The Delhi high court on Thursday reserved its order on the pleas by real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal who sought a suspension of their seven-year jail term in the Uphaar cinema fire evidence tampering case.

Uphaar cinema's property at Green Park in New Delhi.

Justice Subramonium Prasad heard the arguments on behalf of the counsel for the Ansals, another convicted person Anoop Singh Karayat, the Delhi Police, and Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT).

A trial court in November last year awarded the Ansal brothers, former court staff Dinesh Chand Sharma and two others -- PP Batra and Anoop Singh Karayat -- seven-year jail terms. The sessions court refused to suspend the sentence and release them on bail.

The 1997 fire left 59 dead.

While dismissing the Ansals’ plea, the sessions court said the case was one of the gravest of its kind and the offence appeared to be the outcome of a calculated design to interfere with the course of justice.

Seeking to suspend the jail term, Sushil Ansal’s counsel contended before the high court that the “mutilated” documents were not relevant to his culpability in the main Uphaar trial and his conviction in the evidence tampering case was a “travesty of justice”.

He highlighted that Sushil Ansal was over 80-years-old and suffered from various ailments.

Gopal Ansal’s counsel similarly argued that his client was over 70-years-old and said that the court should exercise its wide and liberal discretion to release him.

The plea was opposed by the Delhi Police, which argued that the petitioners mutilated vital documents which formed part of the trial record in the main Uphaar cinema case, which forced the prosecution to record the secondary evidence in the main case and resulted in an enormous delay of trial court proceedings.

AVUT’s counsel opposed the plea contending that the accused persons cannot be allowed to take law in their hands and claimed that the Ansals were “incorrigible’ and that the instant matter pertained to “majesty of the law” and “obstruction of justice”.