Jamshedpur Police station case: 20 BJP workers including Raghubar acquitted 

Jamshedpur, June 9: The court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Chaibasa Rishi Kumar acquitted all the 20 accused including former Chief Minister Raghubar Das on Thursday in a case of April 2007 of Kadma police station of Jamshedpur.

The case was related to BJP activist Sudhanshu Ojha when he was arrested by the police in a dispute during the construction of the boundary wall of Baba Jatadhari temple in Shastri Nagar under Kadma police station area of Jamshedpur, against which BJP supporters staged a sit-in protest. Sudhanshu Ojha, a person caught, was freed by entering the police station.

In this case, three cases were registered on behalf of the administration for obstructing government work by imposing illegitimate on the statement of the then station in-charge Rajiv Kumar. Out of which all the people have been acquitted. In the third case, 21 persons were accused, out of which one person RD Dwivedi has died. Today, on the day of the court’s decision, all the 20 accused appeared in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class cum Additional Civil Judge Sadar Chaibasa Rishi Kumar at 12 noon. After taking the introduction of all the accused, the court acquitted them after finding them innocent due to lack of evidence.

Those acquitted include former chief ministers Raghubar Das, Sudhanshu Ojha, Bhuvneshwar Singh, Rajesh Singh, Rajkumar Yadav, Rambabu Tiwari, Devendra Singh, Rajiv Tiwari, Rajiv Nandan Singh, Bateshwar Pandey, Devanand Jha, Ajit Singh, Rajkumar Singh, Vinod Singh, Nandji Prasad, Subodh Srivastava, Mukul Mishra, Vikas Singh, Kulwant Singh.

Talking to reporters after the court’s decision, the former Chief Minister said that it is not the victory of any person but the truth. The then administration had tried to implicate BJP workers under a conspiracy.

Chaibasa’s advocate Keshav Prasad and Ranchi’s senior advocates Anil Kumar, Vinod Sahu, Gautam Kumar and Madan Prasad argued for the defense. The statement of five people including the complainant was recorded on behalf of the plaintiff. The accused did not produce any witnesses on their behalf. In the court, the complainant and the witnesses could not support their statement, which benefited the accused.