Ishrat Jahan encounter: Seeking discharge, accused ex-SP calls CBI probe ‘false, funny, dirty’

With his jibe at “two Vermas and Jha”, Amin was referring to retired IPS officer R R Verma and Gujarat cadre IPS Satish Verma and Mohan Jha, who were part of the Gujarat High Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) that probed the case. The SIT had found out that Ishrat Jahan, her friend Pranesh Pillai (alias Javed Sheikh) and two alleged Pakistani nationals — Zeeshan Johar and Amjadali Rana — were killed in cold blood on June 14, 2004 on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.

Amin alleged that the CBI probe is a “brainchild of Satish Verma”. Arguing his discharge application as party-in-person before Special CBI Judge J K Pandya, Amin maintained that Chauhan and Patel cannot be relied upon, and at best they should be arraigned as accused in the case since they also participated in the alleged fake encounter. He said the encounter carried out by the Crime Branch was genuine but he did not participate in the firing, as was alleged. “At the time he recorded his statement Chauhan was police inspector of Bharuch, which is place of his Godfather,” Amin told the court, without naming the “Godfather.”

Similarly, he said, Patel is a “replica of accused no-4 (IPS officer G L Singhal) and his (Singhal’s) right-hand…(he) actually compromised with national integrity by spying over Intelligence Bureau officers…. He takes pills for mental disorders since 2003-2004… aa manas toh gando chhe (this man is mad).”

Chauhan was also part of the SIT which probed the 2002 riots case. He retired last year as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) and was granted a year’s extension.

DySP B A Patel and Chauhan were posted with Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch as police sub-inspectors at the time. Amin said that Chauhan and Patel are equally responsible and their role begins from alleged abduction till execution in the encounter. He said, “Chauhan was taken to CBI office in Mumbai, where he recorded his statement under Section 164, but not before a magistrate, as his diary reveals.”

Amin contended that although he was named in the original FIR as among among those who fired, that is “not true”. He said, “I had objected at that time but since the FIR had already been lodged I did not press for removing my name since only High Court has power to do it.” Amin is accused of firing five rounds from his 9-mm pistol.  He said, “Why was I picked up by the CBI? I was with the prestigious Special Branch, and not with the Crime Branch.

After the encounter, accused number-4 (Singhal) offered me the inquiry into the encounter which I refused and eventually it was done by IPS Parikshita Rathod. I was shocked to see my name in the FIR as a firer.”

He said that the forensic report does not reveal that his service revolver was used. He argued that the CBI should have probed it but did not. Amin said that the High Court had ordered probe by CBI officers but “everything was done by IPS officer Satish Verma. He had been allowed only to assist the CBI, but he was given a cabin in the CBI office and probed the case as a chief investigator.”

Amin told the court that the CBI never probed about the other weapons found from the scene, which would reveal that the encounter was genuine. He said that the CBI officers are deputed from “banks and CISF, who don’t know the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)”.

He called the CBI probe “full (of) illegality” and said the encounter was termed fake due to “political reasons”.
Amin also told the court that he would like the decision on his discharge plea as soon as possible since there is still a chance for him to get promotion as an IPS officer. He will continue his arguments on May 16.