CBI – Page 5

Janardhan Reddy released

January 23, 2015 by Nasheman

Bengaluru: Mining baron and former Karnataka minister Janardhan Reddy, accused of ilegal mining was released from jail at around 4.45 p.m. on Friday.

Supreme Court on Tuesday had granted bail to the mining baron accused in the illegal mining case involving his Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).

The apex court granted bail after CBI submitted that the investigation in the case involving Reddy is complete and both the charge sheet as well as the supplementary charge sheet have been filed.

Though the bail formalities were over few hours ago, sources said Mr. Reddy stayed in jail premises to wait for an auspicious time to exit jail. He greeted and thanked the jail staff before leaving the premises.

Mr. Reddy will be taken to a private hospital for medical check-up since he was suffering from back-ache and minor aliments, police sources said.

Janardhan Reddy and his brother-in-law BV Srinivas Reddy, managing director of OMC, were arrested by CBI on September 5, 2011 from Bellary in Karnataka and brought to Hyderabad.

In the OMC case, the company is accused of changing mining lease boundary markings and indulging in illegal mining in the Bellary Reserve Forest area, spread over Bellary in Karnataka and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh.

Janardhan Reddy gets conditional bail in illegal mining case

January 20, 2015 by Nasheman

G. Janardhan Reddy has been granted conditional bail in Obulapuram Mining Company scam today.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today granted bail to mining baron and former Karnataka Minister Gali Janardhan Reddy, who is an accused in the illegal mining case involving his Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC).

The apex court granted bail after CBI submitted that the investigation in the case involving Reddy is complete and both the charge sheet as well as the supplementary charge sheet have been filed.

Taking on record the submission of the agency, a bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu said, “Since investigating agency has no objection in granting bail, we are granting bail to the petitioner (Reddy).”

The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri and Arun Mishra also noted the submission of Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh and Reddy’s counsel Dushyant Dave that he has been in jail for around four years.

While granting bail, the bench imposed certain conditions including that Reddy will be released from jail on furnishing two sureties of Rs 10 lakh each and that he shall not leave the country without the permission of the court while directing him to surrender his passport.

The bench further said that he should not in any way try to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Reddy had moved the apex court in 2013 challenging the High Court’s decision to reject his bail petition.

He is facing several criminal cases and was lodged in a jail in Andhra Pradesh. He was arrested in 2011.

Janardhan Reddy and his brother-in-law B V Srinivas Reddy, Managing Director of OMC, were arrested by CBI on September 5, 2011 from Bellary in Karnataka and brought to Hyderabad.

(PTI)

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

January 1, 2015 by Nasheman

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

January 1, 2015 by Nasheman

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.

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

December 30, 2014 by Nasheman

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)

Can a defender of Ishrat Jahan ‘encounter’ represent the CBI in the encounter case in the SC?

December 4, 2014 by Nasheman

by Justice for Ishrat Jahan Campaign

For the past few months, we have been witnessing one police officer after another, jailed for fake encounters in Gujarat, being released on bail, or reinstated by the Gujarat government. What is even more startling is the position that investigating agency, the CBI, has been taking in the courts. When the Bombay High court granted bail to N.K. Amin in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case in March 2013, the CBI contested it and filed a cancellation of bail petition before the Supreme Court.

When this cancellation petition was listed in the Supreme Court on 11th November 2014, former BJP Spokesperson and current Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand appeared on behalf of CBI. The CBI’s U-turn in the case was striking. Whereas earlier, it had sought the cancellation of the bail, it did not do so now.

N.K. Amin, who is also an accused in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, meanwhile filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court seeking bail in the Ishrat Jahan matter on the ground that the chargesheet was not filed in 90 days. Again, it was Ms. Anand who represented the CBI.

While no one denies the right of the accused to seek bail, fairness demands that those who have publicly defended the Ishrat Jahan encounter as genuine, and have cast aspersions on the line of enquiry being pursued by the CBI should at least not represent the CBI in this matter. Ms. Anand, in her position as the spokesperson of her party questioned the move by the CBI to take on record the letter that D.G. Vanzara wrote from the prison or to investigate the allegations made in the letter (see full video here).

It would be a travesty of justice if Ms. Anand continues to represent the CBI in an investigation she has questioned in the past. The flip-flops by the CBI in the recent days also raise fears about the independence of investigating agencies.

Released by Manisha Sethi and Mansi Sharma

For Justice for Ishrat Jahan Campaign/ 3rd December 2014.

Supporting Documents:

(Please only refer to the latter part which deals with S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4949/2013 which is the order passed in the Sohrabuddin case.)

Illegal export of iron ore: Janardhana Reddy, 9 others get conditional bail

December 4, 2014 by Nasheman

Bengaluru: Former minister, G Janardhana Reddy, his close associate Mehfooz Ali Khan, Kudligi MLA Nagendra and seven others have secured conditional bail in the third case pertaining to illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri port by a special CBI court.

The case pertained to the second case registered against Dream Logistics, sources said.
The CBI has registered five FIRs against Janardhana Reddy, one pertaining to illegalities in Associated Mining Company and four in connection with illegal export of iron ore from Belekeri port.

On Wednesday, the court granted conditional bail to Reddy and others. However, the accused will not be released from the prison as cases are still pending against them.

Anil Kumar Sinha appointed new CBI Director

December 3, 2014 by Nasheman

New Delhi: Senior IPS officer Anil Kumar Sinha on Tuesday night was appointed the new CBI Director to succeed Ranjit Sinha who retired in a glare of controversy with the Supreme Court directing him to recuse from 2G spectrum scam case probe.

Sinha, a 1979 batch IPS officer of Bihar cadrde, was the Special Director in CBI.

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, cleared the name of Anil Kumar Sinha who was among the candidates shortlisted by the searh committee earier this evening.

The term of Sinha will be for two years from the date he takes charge, an official notification said. Earlier in the day, Modi held discussions with the Chief Justice of India and leader of the main Opposition in Lok Sabha on selecting a new CBI head.

The panel discussed the names of about 40 officers shortlisted by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), sources said.

Ranjit Sinha retired today after a tumultuous tenure of two years at the helm of affairs in CBI that ended on a controversial note.

Sinha’s tenure as CBI chief saw highs like busting of some big bribery cases involving a Railway Board member, Chairman and Managing Director of a public sector bank, Chief Executive Officer of Censor Board among others.

The lows were mainly the criticism he faced from the Supreme Court which asked him to withdraw from 2G probe, criticism from a special court for shoddy probe in coal scam cases, sharing of status report in coal with the then Law Minister Ashwani Kumar after which the agency earned the sobriquet of “caged parrot” from the apex court.

Karnataka-cadre IPS officer Rupal Kumar Dutta to lead 2G probe

November 22, 2014 by Nasheman

Bengaluru: The Central Bureau of Investigation has appointed Rupal Kumar Dutta, additional director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to head the 2G spectrum scam probe. The decision came after Supreme Court’s order asking the CBI chief Ranjit Sinha to recuse from 2G scam investigation and prosecution.

Sinha attended the office on Friday, even though the demand for his resignation and suspension, even from some of his predecessors grew louder after the SC decision.

A 1981-batch IPS officer from the Karnataka cadre, Dutta is the overall in-charge of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the agency which is probing the 2G cases.

“As per the directions of the Supreme Court of India, Director CBI has recused himself from the investigation and prosecution of the case relating to 2G spectrum allocation. As directed, RKDutta, Additional Director, who is the senior-most officer of the investigating team in the case, will henceforth be overall in-charge of the case,” read the CBI statement issued on Friday evening.

SC bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu on Thursday refused to pass an elaborate order on the issue, stating that it would “tarnish” the “image and reputation” of the premier investigating agency.

The SC order has also put a question mark on Sinha’s continuation as the agency chief. Sources in the Home ministry stated that the best option for Sinha is to go on leave on his own, so that government may not have to initiate any action for his replacement. He is retiring on December 2, this year.

A panel including Home secretary, the secretary of the Department of personnel and the Chief vigilance commissioner recommended name of Sinha as the agency chief in 2012 after which he was appointed by the Prime minister.

Interestingly, the then opposition leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley had opposed the appointment and written a strong letter to Prime minister Manmohan Singh. “We must record our strong disappointment and disapproval of this act of the government,” the letter read.

After the enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act in January this year the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, which governs the functioning of the investigation agency, were changed including the requirement of consultation with the outgoing CBI director in the selection process.

According to the Lokpal Act, the selection of the CBI chief has to be done by a committee headed by the Prime minister, and comprising the LoP in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him as members. As of now there is no recognized LoP in Lok Sabha.

Now, BJP led NDA government, which has largely remained silent on the issue may have to amend the act during the winter session of the parliament starting on November 24.

Dutta, a BTech from IIT Kanpur and MBA from Swinburne University in Australia, has held several important positions in anti-corruption, training and other divisions/zones of the CBI from 1988 to 1996 and 2000 to 2006.

He has also held the posts of Joint Director, DIG and SP. He has been associated with the investigation of a number of sensitive cases, including those entrusted to the Centre Bureau of Investigation by the Supreme Court and high courts that have ended in conviction of the accused persons.

Dutta has held various positions in Karnataka as Superintendent of Police (Karwar and Davangere), DIG Intelligence, Security Vigilance and Northern Range and IG North Eastern Range.

He has also served as Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) and also as ADGP in Karnataka Lokayukta. Dutta has been awarded the President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service.

Supreme Court removes CBI chief Ranjit Sinha from 2G scam probe

November 20, 2014 by Nasheman

New Delhi/Agencies: The Supreme Court on Thursday removed CBI Director Ranjit Sinha from 2G case investigation.

CBI’s senior most officer will now oversee 2G probe after removal of Sinha from the case.

“We direct Ranjit Sinha not to interfere in the 2G probe,” the apex court said, adding that his subordinate could take over the investigation into alleged illegal allocations of second-generation airwaves for mobile connectivity by the previous UPA government.

“We are not giving detailed, elaborate orders to protect the fair name of the institution and reputation of the CBI,” the Supreme Court said in its observations on India’s premier investigating agency. Sinha is to retire from his post on December 2 this year.

The apex court verdict is based on a petition filed by senior lawyer and Aam Aadmi Party leader Prashant Bhushan that alleges that Sinha tried to help those being investigated for serious criminal charges in the 2G scam. The apex court observed that apparently “all is not well” within the CBI and seemingly, the allegations made by an NGO against Director Ranjit Sinha have “some credibility”.

“For us, it appears that all is not well and prima facie it seemss that allegations made in the application by the NGO has some credibility,” the apex court said while hearing the case related to allegations by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation that Sinha might have tried to save some accused in 2G spectrum scam.

Meanwhile, the apex court pulled up joint director Ashok Tiwari after he put forward his view on allegations against Sinha.

“You are not agents of CBI director. You can’t be his mouth piece,” SC said.