Actor Sunil Dutt, son of erstwhile actors and Congress Party luminaries, was acquitted of terrorism charges even though others with lesser role and charges were convicted recently; the court however convicted him on possession of illegal weapons. When the verdict was delivered, Sanjay pleaded for an extension of bail on the grounds that that he has "to take care" of his 18 year old daughter studying law in New York, that "crores would be stuck" unless he completes his films, and that he needs to settle his late father's estate. When the judge said none of these were even considerable by the court, Dutt pleaded "I have never come before and asked you for anything." The judge relented and extended the bail till December 19.
According to the charges under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), between January 1993 and the first week of April 1993, the actor had acquired three AK 56 rifles, ammunition, a 9-mm pistol, cartridges, and hand grenades without authorization. Since the Greater Bombay was a "Notified Area," possession of illegal weapons is a serious crime. Along with another, who is now a Minister of State for Labor, he possessed these weapons and assisted the transport and safe-keeping of the weapons used in the Mumbai blasts. An Ibrahim associate along with a " Salem " showed up at home with 3 AK-56 assault rifles, grenades, and ammunition and Dutt kept those at home.
Initially, he tried to cover up the evidence by destroying the AK-56 assault rifle through friends in a foundry and disposing the remains in the sea. In his confessional statement, Dutt claims that he acquired the assault weapons in fear for his life but he procured them from Anees Ibrahim, the brother of Dawood Ibrahim. However, he retracted his confession in November 2004 but was still considered by the judge and apparently suppression and destruction of evidence was not included in the list of charges.
A designated TADA judge said he did not find Dutt a terrorist and responsible for the 1993 terror incidents in Mumbai, but held him culpable of owning fire arms in violation of the Indian Arms Act. The judge cite confessions of Dutt's co-accused to acquit him even though he had convicted others for far less crimes such as driving a car and even opening the trunk that held the bombs. The conviction under the Arms Act would get a minimum of 5 years in jail up to a maximum of 10. Dutt has already spent 16 months in jail and is now out on bail. Many fear that the bail regime may be extended so Dutt will walk away after paying paltry fines and bail amounts for his crimes to facilitate the terrorist attacks.
As many other cases before him, Dutt's acquittal brings up several inconvenient questions about the uniform application of law and indeed the efficacy of rule of law in India. Firstly, why was Dutt acquitted of terrorism when others with lesser offences were convicted? Secondly, why did the judge use Dutt's retracted confession while acquitting him? Thirdly, why were there no charges of perjury and destruction of evidence brought in? Fourthly, why was the bail extended to Dutt despite the judge's expressed observation that he was not impressed with any of his submissions?
If the quantum of sentence offered to Dutt at a later hearing lets him off with a rap on his wrists, there will be little doubt that political intervention facilitated the acquittal.
