Uphaar tragedy | No more jail to Ansal brothers as SC rejects curative petition

uphaar verdict

The Hush Post| 12:15 pm|one-minute-read|

The Supreme Court has dismissed a curative plea filed by victims’ association regarding the 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy case. This enables the Ansal brothers, Sushil and Gopal Ansal, to escape further jail term in Uphaar case.

Industrialists Sushil and Gopal Ansal owned the Uphaar Cinema. The fire mishap here killed 59 people during the screening of Hindi movie ‘Border’ on June 13, 1997.

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices NV Ramana and Arun Mishra on Thursday rejected the curative plea of the Association for Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) in Uphaar cinema fire case.

“We have gone through the curative petitions and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out…. Hence, the curative petition is dismissed,” the bench said in its order.

The case that dragged into a long legal tangle, a trial court had in 2015 convicted the Ansal brothers.

In 2017, a three-judge bench had given relief to 78-year-old Sushil Ansal

In 2015, the Supreme Court had allowed the Ansal brothers to walk free with a fine of Rs 60 crore. It added that the two were not required to go to jail. The verdict created an uproar as Ansal brothers had individually undergone just five to six months imprisonment each.

Two years later, the Supreme Court sent one of the real estate barons Ansal brothers, Gopal, to one year of jail.

Reviewing a part of its order for the June 13, 1997 tragedy, the SC bench refused to give any incarceration to another accused, Sushil Ansal, keeping his age into account.

In 2017, a three-judge bench had given relief to 78-year-old Sushil Ansal. Iit was done considering his “advanced age-related complications” by awarding him the jail term which he had already undergone. It, however, asked his younger sibling Gopal Ansal to serve the remaining one-year jail term.

“Further, the judgment also reduces the sentence of one year on Sushil Ansal to the period of sentence already undergone if the fine imposed is paid by the convict in view of his advanced age,” the court had said.

Leave a Reply