Nasheman

India's largest selling Urdu weekly, now also in English

You are here: Home / Archives for Sohrabuddin Sheikh

D G Vanzara leaves jail, says 'acche din' are back

by

Photo: Hindustan Times

Photo: Hindustan Times

Ahmedabad: Moments after walking out of jail after almost eight years, former Gujarat deputy inspector general of police DG Vanzara, one of the accused in Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Ishrat Jahan’s encounter case, has said that the Gujarat Police were targeted for “extra political reasons”.

“Ache din [Good days] for me and other police officers are back,” Vanzara was quoted as saying by television channels after coming out of the Sabarmati Central Jail on Wednesday. He further added,”Gujarat Police were targeted for extra ploitical reasons.” Ache din ayenge [Good days will come] was one of the poll slogans of the BJP ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

D G Vanzara, 61, is one of Gujarat’s most controversial police officers. Earlier this month, he was granted bail in the Ishrat Jahan case, one of two “fake encounter” cases against him, on the condition that he will not enter his home state Gujarat.

He had been granted bail in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh murder case in 2014. He was a Deputy Inspector General of Police when he was arrested in March 2007 and had been in jail since.

Mr Vanzara and other top police officers are accused of killing 19-year-old college student Ishrat Jahan and three others in 2004 and, in a separate case later, a petty criminal Sohrabbudin Sheikh, his wife and Tulsiram Prajapati, a key witness.

Mr Vanzara and the other police officers claim they were killing terrorists who wanted to assassinate Narendra Modi, who was then chief minister of Gujarat. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) says the civilians were killed in cold blood.

Today, Mr Vanzara said, “Anti-terror operations happen in every state. But Gujarat Police was a victim of politics. It was unfairly targeted for political reasons.”

He refused to comment on a resignation letter he had written from jail in 2013, in which he accused Amit Shah, who was Home Minister of Gujarat and is now BJP chief, of being in the know of the police officers’ plans to counter the civilians, who he maintained were terrorists from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Mr Vanzara’s resignation was not accepted and he retired last year, while still in prison.

(Agencies)

Former police officer D G Vanzara gets bail in Ishrat Jahan case

by

Photo: Hindustan Times

Photo: Hindustan Times

Ahmedabad/NDTV: One of Gujarat’s most controversial police officers, DG Vanzara, is likely to walk out of jail soon after he was granted bail today in the 2004 killing of college student Ishrat Jahan. But a court in Ahmedabad said he can’t enter Gujarat.

Eight police officers were charge-sheeted in the case. Four were granted bail earlier and today, two more got it – Mr Vanzara and another police officer, PP Pande.

Mr Vanzara was granted bail in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter killing case of 2005 in September.

He has been in a jail in Ahmedabad for eight years for cases that earned him the nickname of “encounter specialist”. He retired last year. He was arrested in March 2007, when he was a Deputy Inspector General of Police, for the Sohrabuddin killing.

Sohrabuddin, a petty criminal, his wife Kauser Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati were traveling on a bus from Andhra Pradesh in 2005 when they were kidnapped by the Gujarat police. Sohrabuddin and his wife were killed a few days later. Tulsiram, a key witness to their abduction, was shot dead a year later; the police claimed that he was trying to escape.

Mr Vanzara was also made an accused in the killing of Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old, and three men in 2004. All four were shot dead by police officers who claimed that they were involved in a plot to kill Narendra Modi, who was Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time.

In 2013, Mr Vanzara quit the force and shot off a vitriolic letter in which he accused Mr Modi and BJP president Amit Shah, a former Home Minister of Gujarat, of making him and other police officers scapegoats for following their orders.

In December, a court in Mumbai accepted Amit Shah’s discharge petition and said he will not face charges in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh killing.

Sohrabuddin Killing: Former Gujarat police chief discharged on technicality

by

Sohrabuddin_case

Mumbai/NDTV: Former Gujarat police chief PC Pandey, who was accused of trying to derail investigations into the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter killing case, was today let off on a technicality.

PC Pandey, a former Director General of Police, was discharged after a court in Mumbai ruled that the CBI should have taken the Centre’s sanction before charging him.

Sources say this could pave the way for more police officers to be discharged in the decade-old fake encounter case.

In 2005, Sohrabuddin, a petty criminal, his wife Kauser Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati were traveling on a bus from Andhra Pradesh when they were kidnapped by the Gujarat police. Sohrabuddin and his wife were killed a few days later. Tulsiram, a key witness to their kidnapping, was shot dead a year later; the police claimed that he was trying to escape.

Mr Pande was accused of suppressing evidence in Tulsiram’s killing.

Another controversial police officer, DG Vanzara, was granted bail in the case last year.

In 2013, Mr Vanzara quit the force and shot off a vitriolic letter in which he accused Narendra Modi, then Gujarat Chief Minister, and Amit Shah, a former state home minister, of making him and other police officers scapegoats for following their orders.

In December, a court in Mumbai accepted Amit Shah’s discharge petition and said the BJP president will not face charges in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh killing.

Amit Shah’s case – A complete mockery of Justice system

by

Amit-Shah

by Pratik Sinha

Once again the Indian Investigating agencies and Judiciary have failed the people of India by letting out a powerful political leader despite having enough evidence of involvement in a henious crime. Amit Shah has been acquitted by the Special CBI Court, Bombay, in the Sohrabuddin murder case even before the trial for the case could start.

Sohrabuddin case has been in the political limelight for over 8 years now. On 23 November, 2005, Sohrabuddin, his wife Kausarbi and Tulsi Prajapati were abducted from a bus near Sangali in Maharashtra. Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were kept in a farm house near Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Sohrabuddin was murdered in a fake encounter on 26th November. His wife Kausarbi was allegedly raped while in custody of Gujarat Police and on 29th November was murdered as well. Within a year, on 28th December, 2006, Tulsi Prajapati was also eliminated.

Gujarat State government agreed before Supreme Court that the encounter of Sohrabuddin was a fake encounter. On April 24th, 2007, IPS officers Vanzara, Dinesh MN and Rajkumar Pandian were arrested by Rajnish Rai. However SC observed that Gujarat government was lackadaisical in its investigation and therefore transferred the case to CBI. CBI arrested Amit shah in July 2010 and thereafter on CBI’s request, the case was transferred to Bombay in 2012. Gujarat Government also admitted before the Supreme Court that Tulsi Prajapati’s encounter was fake as well. Meanwhile Amit Shah had secured himself a bail in the Sohrabuddin case after spending 3 months behind the bars. Soon after, to avoid arrest in the Tulsi Prajapati, on the best of Amit Shah, all three cases were clubbed by Supreme Court as a single case. Since Amit Shah had already secured a bail in Sohrabuddin case, he was not charged separately for Tulsi encounter case and thus avoided arrest even though he was the A-1 accused according to the CBI Chargesheet.

While it was already difficult to secure justice while Narendra Modi was the CM of Gujarat as has been observed in multiple riot and fake encounter cases, now that Modi has become the PM of India, situation has gone from worse to worst for the victims of such heinous crimes. Caged Parrot of Congress has now become Mute Parrot of BJP. It has been more than seven years since the CBI filed its chargesheet in the case and yet the trial in this case has not been started. This became the prime argument for all the cops to get bails and now all these cops who are murder accused are roaming freely in uniforms on the streets of Gujarat and have been reinstated in the police force with plum postings. This speaks a lot about the attitude of Gujarat Government who facilitate such cops.

CBI under Narendra Modi did their job by putting a very poor defence in the Amit Shah’s discharge application. While Amit Shah hired a battery of top lawyers, not even a Special Prosecutor was appointed by the CBI for this case. While Amit Shah’s lawyers argued for 3 days, CBI’s lawyer finished his argument within fifteen minutes. The facilitation by Modi Government was not limited to CBI’s role. Even Judges who were not favourable and who rebuked Amit Shah for his non-appearance in the court were instantly transferred.

But the Government and the Investigating agencies are not the only ones to be blamed. The Special CBI Court, in an unprecedented move, acquitted Amit Shah who was a triple murder accused with a mountain of evidence against him without making him face a trial and being cross-investigated. It is only during the trial stage when the witnesses and evidence are appreciated.

While acquitting Amit Shah, the Court ignored several important facts which were damning of Amit Shah’s role in the Sohrabuddin encounter. The Court did not take into account the statement of VL Solanki who was the investigating officer in this case and who had given a statement about how Amit Shah tried to influence the case. The Court has not taken in account all the phone call data and dying declaration of Tulsi Prajapati before the magistrate and NHRC.

What we have seen in Amit Shah’s case is a complete mockery of the Justice system. Jan Sangharsh Manch who has been representing Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin in this case will move the High Court to appeal against this acquittal. The fight must go on.

Not enough evidence to prosecute Amit Shah? – Statement by Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association

by

Amit-Shah

by Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, JTSA

Even by the plummeting standards set in the last few months, the decision of the special CBI court in discharging Amit Shah, (accused no. 16 in the second chargesheet; accused no. 1 in the third chargesheet) in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, seems outrageous.

The Special CBI court without waiting for even the trial to commence, without weighing the evidence at length, seems to have suddenly concurred with the defence and the ruling party’s view that Amit Shah was caught in a political trap. Why this impatience with the process of the trial? And Shah is no ordinary accused, or accessory with a side role: he is accused of being the “king pin” or the mastermind of the triple murder.

“The entire record considered in totality”, says the court does not indicate to Shah’s role, and hence discharged him. However, what is the entire record? Even a simple, cursory looks suggest that in fact it is not hearsay but solid evidence of call details records, witness statements recorded under 161 and 164 CrPC, as well evidence of systematic and direct interference by Shah in the state CID probe into the encounter.

If the call details records were totally insignificant and proved nothing, why was there such a concerted effort to suppress all such information that pointed to Shah’s role?

The state CID investigations, which first led to the arrests of the senior police offcers, had taken on record phone call details between Shah and accused police officers. However, once the Supreme Court directed the transfer of investigation to the CBI, the CID failed to hand over the CD containing these phone conversations. A total of 331 conversations had been deleted from the record.

(“Another top cop under scanner for ‘erasing’ Amit Shah reference in CD” by Neeraj Chauhan and Ujjwala Nayudu, Indian Express, 27 July 2010.

Link here: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/another-top-cop-under-scanner-for–erasing–amit-shah-reference-in-cd/652299)

Shah attempted to sabotage CID enquiry

IGP Gita Johri, who was made in charge of the state CID investigation, recorded in Part B of her first report, how Shah attempted to sabotage the enquiry. She has recorded that though she and the Investigating Officer Solanki did not face any “hurdle” initially, “However, as soon as the statements of witnesses pertaining to confinement of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi in the Farm House of Shri Girish Patel at Ahmedabad came to be recorded, it came to the knowledge of Shri Vanzara and Shri Rajkumar Pandian [two of the accused officers]. It is further learnt that these officers brought the above facts to the notice of Respondent No. 2, Shri Amit Shah, Minister of State for Home, Government of Gujarat.”

It further states that Shah “brought to bear pressure” on the enquiry process, resulting in the enquiry papers being taken away from her “under the guise of scrutiny”. He “directed Shri G.C. Raigar, Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crime & Railways) to provide him with the list of witnesses, both police and private, who are yet to be contacted by CID (Crime) for recording their statement in the said enquiry. Such direction of Minister of State for Home goes beyond the scope of his office, was patently illegal and apparently designed to provide the same list to accused police officers … so as to enable them to take measures in their defence.”

(See “Geetha Johri report speaks of ‘collusion of State government’”, By Neena Vyas, 5 May 2007, The Hindu. Link here: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article1838149.ece)

Creative Reading by the CBI Court:

The CBI court did not entertain a note written by Gita Johri, in which the sentence “systematic efforts on the part of the state government” was struck out. The CBI’s case had been that this sentence had been omitted under Shah’s political pressure, whereas the court interpreted it to mean that Johri was not happy with the investigation done by the investigating officer. This is a flight of fancy, if there can be one. In fact, it is a matter of record that Johri’s initial investigation, before she was removed, proved to be path breaking. However, when she was reinstated, she took a complete U-turn. So chaffed was the apex court with her that he chastised her, while praising the investigation of the IO Solanki. The Supreme Court observed the following:

“69. We have observed that from the record, it was found that Mr VL Solanki, an investigating officer, was proceeding in the right direction, but Ms Johri had not been carrying out the investigation in the right manner, in view of our discussions made here in above. It appears that Ms Johri had not made any reference to the second report of Solanki, and that though his first report was attached with one of her reports, the same was not forwarded to this Court.

  1. In the present circumstances and in view of the involvement of the police officials the State in this crime, we cannot shut our eyes and direct the State police authorities to continue with the investigation and the charge-sheet and for a proper and fair investigation, we also feel that CBI should be requested to take up the investigation and submit a report in this Court within six months from the date of handing over a copy of this judgment and the records relating to this crime to them.”

(Rubabuddin Sheikh v State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200, p. 217.)

The Special CBI Court cannot act as though none of this happened. The “entire record” in fact points to Shah’s involvement. The conspiracy is that of three cold-blooded murders. By terming Shah’s implication in the triple murder fake encounter case as a political conspiracy carried out by CBI under directions from a rival political party, the special CBI court has cast aspersions on the Supreme Court which was monitoring the investigations closely at all stages.

Disregarding the statements of key witnesses:

The special CBI court also disregarded the statements of key witnesses: namely, the Patel brothers, Dashrath and Raman, proprietors of the successful Popular builders. Their statements to the CBI details how money was extorted from them and how they were being forced by Vanzara and cohorts to give a statement against Sohrabuddin. The statement describes a meeting as well telephonic conversation with Shah. This has been recorded under 164 CrPC, and yet this is not deemed evidence but hearsay?

One can only say that the pusillanimity of the CBI in first, not contesting Shah’s application of exemption from appearing before the court in encounter cases, then not challenging the bail to senior police officer N.K. Amin in the Supreme Court, then responding to Shah’s voluminous discharge application and marathon three day arguments with a perfunctory 15-20 minutes argument by a junior lawyer, had already made matters clear. The die had been cast on 16th May itself, when Amit Shah delivered the rich harvest of seats for the BJP.

But what it has exposed is the rot in our institutions: the u-turn of the CBI, the reinstatement of the accused cops on duty, some of them, such as Abhay Chudasma, being given coveted posting in the Vigilance squad. Worst of all, what it has shown is the abdication of even a modicum of judicial independence.

Sohrabuddin fake encounter case: Charges against Amit Shah dropped

by

Amit-Shah

New Delhi: A special Central Bureau of Investigation court in Mumbai discharged BJP president Amit Shah in the fake encounter cases of Shorabuddin and Tulsiram Prajapati.

The Central Bureau of Investigation special court dropped all charges against Shah in the alleged fake encounter killings of Sheikh, an alleged extremist, his wife Kauser Bi and Tulsi Prajapati, who was said to be an eyewitness to his killing. This means he will not have to face trial in the case.

“I am of the opinion that the inference drawn by CBI is not accepted in totality and he (Shah) cannot be charged as an accused,” special CBI judge MB Gosavi said in a brief order pronounced in the court.

In September 2013, the CBI had charge-sheeted Shah, the former home minister of Gujarat, and 18 others, including several police officers. Shah was charged with criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence and offences under the Arms Act.

Sohrabuddin was allegedly abducted by Gujarat’s anti-terrorism squad and killed in an encounter with the police on November 26, 2005, in Ahmedabad. His wife Kausar Bi was murdered three days later, and her body disposed of.

Following this, Sohrabuddin’s brother, Rubabuddin, had filed a complaint that his brother was killed in a fake encounter.

The Gujarat police had claimed Sohrabuddin had links with Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba and planned to assassinate important political leaders.

Tulsiram Prajapati was killed by the police at Chapri village in Banaskantha district of Gujarat in December 28, 2006.

The CBI alleged that Shah, who was Gujarat’s home minister at the time, was involved in both killings as the police reported to him.

Shah stepped down as home minister in 2010 after he was arrested in the case. He got bail three months later.

Senior counsel Mihir Desai, who had appeared for complainant Rubabuddin, had argued in court that Shah was in frequent touch with police officers S Rajkumar Pandyan and DG Vanzara, who are in jail in connection with the case, and that he also tried to influence the investigation into the killings.

Looking at the statements recorded in the charge sheet the minimum that can be deciphered is that Shah was either trying to destroy evidence or fabricate it, and hence the discharge plea should be rejected, said Desai.

But Shah’s lawyer had contested that call records of Shah and some police officials between November 2005 and December 2006 have been brought on record, but calls made by Shah before and after the period were not.

Even the content of the talk was not produced, Shah’s lawyer had contested.

(With inputs from PTI)

I carried out the encounter of Ishrat Jahan on the orders given by my superior, DG Vanzara testified before CBI court

by

Photo: Hindustan Times

Photo: Hindustan Times

Ahmedabad: Accused in many fake-encounters, Gujarat IPS officer DG Vanzara has spilled the beans on Friday when he testified before a special CBI court here that he carried out the encounter of Mumbai college student Ishrat Jahan on the orders given by his superior on the basis of inputs received from Intelligence Bureau (IB).

Vanzara, who has been in jail for more than seven years, made his submission through his lawyer during hearing on his bail plea. His lawyer VD Gajjar told the CBI court that the IB, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court in August, had clearly mentioned that the four persons killed in the encounter were terror suspects and the claim was supported by a statement of David Headly, a 26/11 plotter. However, the CBI charge sheet contradicts Vanzara’s claim as the inputs about the terror suspects coming to Gujarat were given to then Ahmedabad Police Commissioner KR Kaushik not to Vanzara. The inputs were forwarded to Vanzara, then a DIG, through his superior Kaushik, he said.

His counsel argued that Vanzara was not aware about IB’s inputs and he only executed the operation on the instructions of his superior but the CBI did not make Kaushik an accused in the encounter case.

He further asked the court that in the FIR, CBI relied upon statements of some police inspectors, who said they took part in the encounter on the orders of their superiors. Vanzara also did the same, then why was he “framed” while his superiors were not named accused by the agency. He also questioned why IB officers were let off the hook?

“CBI had not made four IB officials linked to the case (Rajendra Kumar, Tarun Mittal, MK Sinha and Rajiv Wankhede) accused and only Gujarat Police officers were named in the charge sheet”.

In its defence, CBI lawyer LD Tiwari said the agency had not received sanction from the Union Home Ministry, as required under Section 197 of CrPC, to proceed against the IB officers.

It is to be noted here that under the Section 197 of CrPC, no public servant can be prosecuted for an alleged offence committed during discharge of official duty without the government’s nod. Contending this, Vanzara counsel Gajjar said CBI did not opt for any such permission before naming Vanzara or any other Gujarat Police officer in the charge sheet. The court, after hearing the submissions, adjourned the matter to December 5.

It is to be recalled that Ishrat (19), a college girl from Mumbra near Mumbai, and along with three men – Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar – were shot dead allegedly by Gujarat Police near here on June 15, 2004 on suspicion that they were on a terror mission.

On the order of the Supreme Court, CBI did the probe of the encounter and found that it was cold-blooded murder in which over a dozen policemen, including IPS officers, were charged with murder and criminal conspiracy and Vanzara is one of them who got bail in another fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife. Vanzara’s submission, who was considered as a blue-eyed police officer in the then Modi-led Gujarat, may stir up hornets’ nest.

KNOW US

GET INVOLVED

PROMOTE

Archives