SC quashes Pandya father’s plea seeking questioning of Modi

Declining to issue any direction in this regard,the Bench,also comprising justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan,said: “We are very sorry that a father has to come here… anyone can visualise the feeling of a father.” The remarks came as Vithalbhai started arguing,seeking a direction to the investigating agency. Later,senior advocate Maganbhai Barot was allowed to make submissions on his behalf.

It was contended that the CBI was not examining some of the main witnesses in the case,including Haren’s wife Jagrutiben,which could help unearth the root of the conspiracy,allegedly involving Modi. Vithalbhai and Barot alleged that Haren became a victim of political vendetta after he appeared before a commission probing the Gujarat riots.

“He wanted to say something before the commission,” Barot said,narrating the sequence of events which finally led to his killing.

They said the conspiracy was manifested by the fact that on March 25,2003 the Municipal Commissioner had issued an order prohibiting the movement of hawkers at the Law Garden at Ellisbridge,where Haren was killed during his morning walk a day later.