The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, on Monday, made a strong plea for the cancellation of the interim bail to state minister Maya Kodnani in the Naroda Patia and Naroda Gam riot cases of February 28, 2002.

Special Public Prosecutor J M Panchal submitted before Justice D H Waghela of the Gujarat High Court that there was sufficient evidence to suggest Kodnani’s involvement in the two cases. As such, Kodnani’s bail should be cancelled.

On queries by Justice Waghela as to why Kodnani was not arrested immediately when the SIT began the probe a year ago and what was the need to arrest her now, Panchal cited the discrepancies between the statements given by Kodnani and the evidences collected against her by the SIT during the course of the probe. He said this has necessitated her interrogation by the SIT again.

Panchal also referred to several judgements of the apex court as also of the Gujarat High Court in cases with identical circumstances where the accused had been denied bail.

When questioned by the judge how could Kodnani be accused of being a party to the crime when she had actually not taken part in the attack, Panchal said, as a leader representing the Naroda seat in the state Assembly, the minister had provoked the mob to attack the minority community at the two places.

“Each member of an unlawful assembly is liable to be prosecuted,” Panchal said, contending that “it is a settled law”.

Panchal said the cancellation of the anticipatory bail is necessary because of the seriousness of the offence; the prima facie case against the accused; her status to tamper with the evidence; and in the larger interest of the society.

He contended that the victims were also receiving threats from the supporters of the minister.

He said as many as eight eyewitnesses, themselves victims, had testified against Kodnani before the SIT, but these factors were not taken into consideration by the additional Sessions Court while granting the anticipatory bail.

He said the principle of parity referred to by the Sessions judge did not apply in the case because of the heinous nature of the offence and the status of the accused.

Panchal told the court that the accused was summoned on January 29 and 31, but she did not appear before it and went missing soon after. She procured the anticipatory bail on February 5 after the SIT declared her as an absconder on February 2.