Ishrat Jahan encounter case: CBI reply denies Vanzara claim, says never questioned Modi
The five-page reply, which opposed the discharge plea, states that the averments mentioned in paragraph 41 of Vanzara’s plea are “false, baseless and denied.”
Former IPS officer DG Vanzara had moved court seeking discharge when their then superior officer, retired DGP PP Pandey, was discharged by the special court. (Express Photo/Javed Raja/File)
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which filed its reply in the special court on Friday, opposed the discharge pleas of former IPS officer DG Vanzara and former Superintendent of Police NK Amin in the 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The probe agency has said it has enough evidence against the two. Vanzara and Amin had moved court, seeking their discharge when their then superior officer, retired DGP PP Pandey, was discharged by the special court.
In the reply, the CBI has categorically denied Vanzara’s claim that it ever summoned the then chief minister Narendra Modi, now the Prime Minister, or questioned him in this case. The five-page reply states that the averments mentioned in the paragraph 41 of Vanzara’s plea is “false, baseless and denied”. Vanzara had claimed in his plea, “The fact also remains that the then chief minister and present Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also called by the I O (investigating officer) and was interrogated. However, such material is not placed on record of this case. The fact remains that it was the intention of the then investigating team, which had included one Satish Verma, IPS, … to reach the then chief minister of the state and to rope him as the accused in this case, and for that purpose the story of this whole chargesheet is created and concocted.”
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.
Share
