scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Monday, November 30, 2020

Ishrat Jahan encounter case: CBI court refuses to drop proceedings against four accused officers

Disposing their charge pleases, the court asks agency to get state sanction to prosecute JG Parmar, Tarun Barot, GL Singhal and Anaju Chaudhary.

Written by Sohini Ghosh | Ahmedabad | Updated: October 23, 2020 2:33:42 pm
Ishrat Jahan case: CBI court says accused police officers acted ‘while discharging official duties’Ishrat Jahan, her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh, Amzad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed in an alleged fake encounter by the Ahmedabad police on the outskirts of the city in June 2004. (File)

A special CBI court in Ahmedabad on Friday, presiding over the trial of the extrajudicial killing of Ishrat Jahan, disposed the discharge pleas filed by four accused officers – JG Parmar, Tarun Barot, GL Singhal and Anaju Chaudhary – with a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to seek sanction from the state government to prosecute the accused officers.

Of the four, JG Parmar passed away on September 21 and is thus abated from the case.

Ishrat Jahan, Pranesh Pillai and two others, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar, who were said to be Pakistanis, were killed near Kotarpur waterworks on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on June 15, 2004 by Ahmedabad City Detection of Crime Branch, then led by DG Vanzara. DCB had then claimed that the four were operatives of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, out to kill the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Also Read | Former IPS officer DG Vanzara gets post-retirement promotion by Gujarat govt

The CBI had originally filed the case in 2013 against seven policemen, of whom three – P P Pandey, DG Vanzara and NK Amin — now stand discharged

At the time of making submissions before the CBI court, the current accused had pointed out that the CBI was expected to obtain sanction to prosecute them, prior to framing of charges. In the case of DG Vanzara and NK Amin, it was only owing to the court’s instructions that CBI had sought sanction for prosecution, both of whom had filed discharge pleas at the time. The sanction was subsequently declined by the government.

During the course of argument of the discharge plea of the four accused officers, it was also submitted that they believe that “sanction for prosecution shall be declined with respect to (the remaining) case also,” primarily assumed on the basis of the observations made by the special CBI court in its earlier orders which “are squarely applicable to the present accused too”.

Also Read | Ishrat encounter case: Trial judge transferred

In August 2018, then special CBI Judge JK Pandya, while rejecting the discharge applications of DG Vanzara and NK Amin, had observed, “…before framing of charge in the case, the CBI should make it clear whether it will obtain sanction for prosecution or not so that the case of the complainant should not be affected. Framing of charge against the accused without sanction would be bad in law and therefore, the CBI is directed to either obtain sanction for prosecution from the concerned authority or declare in writing the legal position as per the law, with regard to sanction for prosecution against the accused…”

Relying on the fact that the order mentioned “accused”, and not “applicant-accused”, the lawyers for the current accused had argued that the CBI should have sought sanction to prosecute all six (PP Pandey was discharged prior to August 2018), instead of only seeking the sanction from the state government, for Vanzara and Amin.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.

0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement