A special CBI court on Wednesday asked CBI to respond to why it has decided not to challenge the orders of discharge of ex-IPS officer DG Vanzara and ex-Superintendent of Police NK Amin from the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The court also sought to know from the central agency that why has it decided not to challenge the denial of sanction to prosecute the accused policemen.
The special judge R K Chudawala after hearing the arguments of four accused policemen, who have sought discharge from the case on ground of parity with Vanzara and Amin, asked the CBI to respond to these issues on the next date of hearing on November 26. Earlier, the CBI has given in writing before the court that it will not challenge these orders as "competent authorities" of the agency has accepted them.
These issues have been raised by four accused policemen including Inspector General of Police, G L Singhal, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police Tarun Barot, J G Parmar and Police Sub-Inspector Anaju Chaudhary. They have said that since previous orders, discharging ex-Director General of Police P P Pandey, Vanzara and Amin, have attained finality, they should also be discharged from the case on similar grounds.
Among the major grounds of their discharge is absence of requisite government sanction to prosecute government officers under section 197 of code of criminal procedure (CrPC). In the case of accused Gujarat policemen, the CBI maintained that sanction is not required for prosecution as accused are involved in conspiracy and murder.
However, in the case of four co-accused officers of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the CBI sought permission from the central government which was denied. The accused policemen have contested CBI's stand. Earlier this year, the special court while hearing the pleas of Vanzara and Amin asked CBI to clarify whether it would obtain sanction or not.
The CBI chose to get permission from Gujarat government which was denied. On this ground alone, both the accused officers were dropped from the trial. The Gujarat government had denied permission on the ground of "larger public interest" and claimed that Ishrat Jahan was an operative of Pakistan-based terror organization "Lashkar-e-Taiba." On Wednesday, the court also asked CBI to clarify why it waited for the court to seek sanction.
On the other hand, the arguments on behalf of four accused persons were completed. Their advocates argued that there is no chance of framing the charges since key accused, who were part of the same conspiracy, have been discharged. It was argued that how the court would frame charges when key accused such as Amin have been discharged. For instance, they argued, Amin was involved in the offense right from the conspiracy to abducting Ishrat Jahan, her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai and two Pakistani nationals, keeping them illegal confinement and eventually killing them on the spot.