Ishrat Jahan encounter case: CBI reply denies Vanzara claim, says never questioned Modi

Opposing the discharge plea, the CBI, in its reply, also denies Vanzara’s claim that the investigation was “politically motivated” and “with a view to topple the democratically elected government”. It also denied Vanzara’s claim that the “entire plot” was conceived by the then UPA government at the Centre. The reply states that there is no basis of such claim.

On Friday, the CBI also filed a separate reply on the discharge plea of Amin, another accused in the case. Opposing Amin’s plea, the CBI reply states that the fact that Amin took part in the firing is proved in the FIR lodged by co-accused J G Parmar in 2004. This was the original FIR lodged by the Ahmedabad Detection of Crime Branch after the alleged encounter killing of Mumbai girl Ishrat Jahan, her friend Pranesh Pillai alias Javed Sheikh and two alleged Pakistani nationals.

Amin has claimed that he didn’t participate in the firing as there is no evidence that there was firing from his 9mm service revolver. The CBI has responded that “as far as the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased…for which weapon has not been identified …is itself an evidence of the fake encounter.”

Countering claims that witnesses were created by pressuring them and statements were recorded in Maharashtra instead of Gujarat, the CBI said, “There is no prohibition on recording the statements outside the state.” It also says that the FIR in this case was lodged by the CBI, Mumbai special branch.

Amin had sought discharge on the ground that the four accused Intelligence Bureau officers were never arrested. The CBI reply has stated that the “role of IB officers is different from accused Gujarat police”. Amin has also claimed that the key eye-witnesses, Deputy Superintendent of Police I K Chauhan and Bharat Patel, have played equal roles as the accused officers and the duo eventually would be arraigned as accused in the trial. The CBI has denied these averments. Following the submission of replies, the court adjourned the case for hearing on May 5.

Incidentally, Vanzara has none of the witnesses are reliable. His plea claims, “The statement of witnesses, which have been recorded under section 164 (5) of CrPC are highly suspicious.” According to his plea, the CBI chargesheeted only seven policemen out of a total of 19 accused who were named in the FIR.

Vanzara has stated, “The investigating officer is not vested with the power of pardon even during the course of investigation.” He has argued that the charges cannot be framed based on the statements of accused who were “converted into witnesses” by the central probe agency. Out of 19 persons, 14 were on the scene of offence. Out of them, the CBI booked only five while many of them turned into witnesses.

Vanzara has sought discharge on the ground of parity with former Director General of Police P P Pandey, who was discharged by the court on February 21 on various grounds, including lack of sanction for prosecuting government servant, no prima facie case and unreliable witnesses. Vanzara has stated that he is also facing “more or less” the same charges as Pandey and, therefore, he should also get exonerated.

On April 14, a hearing scheduled on the discharge pleas of the two was adjourned by a special CBI court in Ahmedabad, after the probe agency asked for two weeks’ time to draft a reply to the same.