• Associate Sponsor

Ishrat Jahan’s mother opposes plea by accused

The two IB officers — Rajeev Wankhede and Tushar Mittal — had challenged the order saying there were was no permission by the Centre to CBI to prosecute them.

By: Express News Service | Ahmedabad | Published: January 21, 2018 6:27 am
Ishrat Jahan encounter case, Gujarat encounter case, Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case, CBI, Rajinder Kumar, Rajeev Wankhede, Tushar Mittal, Mukul Sinha, Indian Express Ishrat Jahan (File Photo)

Appearing on behalf of Ishrat Jahan’s mother Shamima Kauser, two senior lawyers on Saturday objected to the application moved by two accused officers of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The accused had challenged a special CBI court order which took cognisance of a supplementary chargesheet and issued summons for their appearance.

Senior lawyer I H Syed argued before the special CBI court that summons issued by the court is valid as there is no need to take prior sanction from the government to prosecute government servants in cases of criminal conspiracy. He cited two judgments of the Supreme Court to prove that in such cases prior sanction under Section 197 of CrPC was not required.

The two IB officers — Rajeev Wankhede and Tushar Mittal — had challenged the order saying there were was no permission by the Centre to CBI to prosecute them. Besides Wankhede and Mittal, Mukul Sinha and former special director Rajinder Kumar were also accused. “This case is very peculiar… On what basis the chargesheet was not taken on record for so many years,” advocate Vrinda Grover argued.

Both of them also opposed the discharge application of former DGP P P Pandey.

PIL on Shah discharge in High Court 

The Bombay Lawyers’ Association have moved in the Bombay HC a PIL against the CBI’s decision to not challenge BJP president Amit Shah’s discharge by a Sessions Court in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. S
    Jan 21, 2018 at 12:09 pm
    The CBI is independent authority as such if their case is defeated in lower court it is their bounden duty to appeal in the higher court. If they not filed the appeal then there is favoritism to the accused and the CBI the accused are hand in glove.This type of incidents will happen in only corrupt country like India.
    1. Black Cobra
      Jan 21, 2018 at 11:02 am
      So far crores of taxpayers money gone down the drain for defending LeT operative by UPA.
      1. Freaky Jesus
        Jan 21, 2018 at 8:21 am
        On 15 July 2004, The Indian Express, The Times of India, Rediff , Outlook carried news reports that "the Lahore-based Ghazwa Times, mouthpiece of the Lashkar-e-Taiba" had acknowledged Ishrat Jahan as a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative. According to these news reports, the Ghazwa Times had published an article on the "Jamat-ul-Dawa" (sic) stating that "the veil of Ishrat Jahan, a woman (silent cell) activist of LeT, was removed by Indian police and her body was kept with other mujahideens (terrorists) on the ground", and that "Ishrat was with her terrorist partner, sitting on the front seat of the car".
        1. Freaky Jesus
          Jan 21, 2018 at 7:54 am
          In June 2013, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Asif Ibrahim (very few Indian muslims are patriotic like Asif and Kalam Sahab) told the Office of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister of India that the Bureau had enough evidence to prove that Ishrat was a part of an LeT module which planned to kill Narendra Modi and the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, Lal Krishna Advani. This is coming from IB head and a sunni muslim himself. In February 2016, Headley testified before a Mumbai court, via video from the US, that Ishrat Jahan was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Later in March 2016, he claimed that he had told NIA that about Jahan. However, he denied that Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi had told him about her, adding that he had personal knowledge about her.
          1. Freaky Jesus
            Jan 21, 2018 at 7:52 am
            In July 2004, Indian media carried reports that the Lashkar-e-Taiba had published an article on the Jamaat-ud-Dawah's claiming Ishrat Jahan as their silent cell terrorist operative. In May 2007, the Jamaat-ud-Dawah apologised to Indian Muslims, and to the family of Ishrat Jahan, for the trouble caused by their summarisation of Indian news coverage of the encounter. Indian media coverage of this apology presented it as being for the statement that Ishrat had been a Lashkar operative and now they were trying to cover up so that her family can pretend that Israt was an innocent person while she was openly going with 3 other sunni muslims and probably having 0rgies in the name of Allah.
            1. Load More Comments