Gujarat admits ‘LeT man’ killed in fake encounter

Appearing for the state of Gujarat, senior advocate K T S Tulsi told a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan: “The preliminary inquiry has found that it was a fake encounter.”

The Gujarat Police had all along insisted that Sheikh was killed on November 26, 2005, in a joint “encounter” by their Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the Rajasthan Special Task Force at Vishala Circle in Ahmedabad while riding a motorcyle. Nothing is known about the whereabouts of Kauser.

Admitting the fake encounter today, the Gujarat government maintained that at this point it could not reveal anything more about the killing of Sohrabuddin or the disappearance of Kauser. Tulsi said further inquiry was in progress and sought four weeks to submit a detailed report.

Last night, the policemen who were part of the team that allegedly carried out the encounter —- Raj Kumar Pandian, SP (Operations), ATS, Deputy SP Dinesh Parmar, and two constables —- were transferred by the Gujarat government. D G Vanzara, who headed the ATS at the time, had earlier been shifted as Deputy Inspector General, Border Range.

Gujarat broke its silence on the encounter after one and a half years in response to a notice issued to it by the SC. The court sent the notice on Monday on a petition filed by Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin Sheikh, seeking an explanation about the circumstances under which Kauser Bi went missing. In his petition filed in January 2006, Rubabuddin had sought a CBI probe, alleging that the police had concocted the encounter story and that Kauser had also been killed. The SC on March 19 issued a notice to the Gujarat government in this regard. The CBI, whose opinion was also sought, told the court that day that prima facie the case warranted an investigation. The CBI’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, also told the court that the Gujarat police had provided them a sealed envelope which contained only one report of the investigation conducted by the CID into the encounter and was not parting with three other subsequent reports.

In its investigation into the encounter, Inspector General CID (Crime) Geeta Johri had found grounds to contest the police version of events. The Gujarat government had ordered the CID probe after the Supreme Court’s notice to it on Rubabuddin’s petition.

While it handed over Johri’s one report to the CBI, the three reports which the Gujarat government kept out reportedly had the officer picking out discrepancies and loopholes in the police story. In the final report, Johri reportedly suggested that a case be registered against the officers involved. Submitted in February 2007, the report by Johri stated: “Based on the statements of various witnesses and subsequent identification of the photographs of Sohrabuddin and Kauser Bi, there appears to be some discrepancy regarding the presence of Sohrabuddin and Kauser at Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, which needs to be further inquired into”.

Its findings also suggested that Sohrabuddin and his wife were picked up from an inter-state bus while travelling from Andhra Pradesh to Gujarat via Rajasthan. It talked to fellow passengers on the bus, who recognised the photos of Sohrabuddin and Kausar as that of the couple, along with a third person, who had been taken off the bus.

With the Gujarat government finally admitting the encounter had been fake, Rubabuddin, who lives in Ujjain, told the court today that he was being threatened that he would be branded a terrorist if he didn’t withdraw his petition. Following this, Tulsi assured the Bench, also comprising Justices T Chatterjee and R V Raveendran, that all steps will be taken to protect the petitioner. “We (Gujarat) will give all protection to him even if he is outside the state,” the advocate said.

Meanwhile, on a petition filed by veteran journalist B G Verghese, who has sought an independent probe into 21 alleged encounters in Gujarat in the last three years, the court observed: “We cannot issue notice on PILs like this which do not have details about the incidents. At least a prima facie case has to be made for issuing a notice on it.” The basis of Verghese’s petition was the information provided by the state government in the Assembly about the encounters. The court granted three weeks to the journalist to provide details about the incident.