Ahmedabad

Gujarat High Court Releases Detailed Judgment in Ahmedabad Serial Blasts Case

By GS Team
13 Jul 20262 mins read
TukuTouch Logo
Gujarat High Court upheld death penalties for 27 in the Ahmedabad Serial Blast case, increasing victim compensation. The court affirmed fines, citing the gravity of the 2008 attacks, extensive loss of life, and property damage, particularly to Civil Hospital. The defence failed to justify reducing fines, leading to the High Court upholding the Special Court's stringent punishment.

Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info

Gujarat High Court Releases Detailed Judgment in Ahmedabad Serial Blasts Case

The Gujarat High Court has confirmed the death penalty for 27 accused in the Ahmedabad Serial Blast case, with raising compensation for the victims.

Gujarat High Court has upheld the fines imposed on convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial bomb blasts case, saying the Special Court's decision was justified considering the gravity of the offence, the large-scale loss of life and the extensive damage to public and private property.

Why did the High Court uphold the fines?

The court said the Special Court's decision was justified because:

The serial blasts claimed several lives and left a large number of people injured.

The attacks caused extensive damage to both public and private property.

The offence involved large-scale destruction, warranting stringent punishment.

Civil Hospital damage a key factor

The High Court placed particular emphasis on the damage caused to the Civil Hospital, observing that:

  • Damage to a public healthcare institution is not merely an economic loss.
  • Such destruction disrupts essential public services.
  • The impact extends beyond the hospital and affects society at large.

What did the court say about the defence?

The High Court noted that:

The defence failed to present convincing grounds for reducing or modifying the fines.

There was no justification for appellate interference with the Special Court's decision.

Final ruling

The High Court held that the Special Court had exercised its discretion appropriately.

It refused to interfere with the quantum of the fines.

The fines imposed on the convicts have been upheld.