<p class="title">Opposing the applications of former police officers DG Vanzara and Narendra Amin, who have moved special CBI court here requesting the prosecution case be dropped against them. Lawyer for Shamima Kauser, mother of Ishrat Jahan, on Tuesday argued that the court should proceed against the duo by framing charges.</p>.<p class="title">Appearing for Kauser, senior advocate Vrinda Grover argued before the special judge J K Pandya in detail, explaining how the probe was initiated on direction of Gujarat High Court and eventually taken over the CBI, which established that Ishrat and three others including her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai and two alleged Pakistani nationals were murdered in cold blood.</p>.<p class="title">Grover reminded the court that it had rejected the discharge applications of both the accused while holding that “there is a prima facie case against them.”</p>.<p class="title">Vanzara and Amin have sought dropping of the prosecution case against them on the ground that state government refused to permit CBI to prosecute them under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC). Under this section, a prior sanction is mandated in a criminal case against government servant.</p>.<p class="title">Grover argued that the acts, as established by CBI in the chargesheet, of the two accused don’t reveal that they were discharging their duties. She said that Ishrat and three others were first “abducted, kept in illegal confinement, then murdered, evidence destroyed, and records were fudged.” While citing various judgments, she said that even illegal detention of any suspect doesn’t amount to discharging of duty.</p>.<p class="title">“There was no criminal antecedent of Ishrat, yet they chose to murder my daughter. They abducted her, kept in illegal conferment and killed her,” Grover argued on behalf Kauser. She told the court that there is no mandatory prohibition on framing charges for want of sanction.</p>.<p class="title">Criticising the CBI, she said that “why CBI didn’t clarify the legal position of law I can’t explain. They have left to the victim’s mother to fight. While those who have power remain silent.” She also said that the state government’s decision to deny sanction to prosecute can’t override the judicial appreciation of this case in which the court itself has held that there is a prima facie case. She said that state government, in the past too, had tried to derail the probe.</p>.<p class="title">The CBI, on the other hand, reiterated that the court should decide the pleas of Vanzara and Amin “in accordance with the law.” Although CBI never said that it opposes the pleas of the two accused former policemen, it reminded the court of its past replies that there is no need for sanction to prosecute the accused.</p>
<p class="title">Opposing the applications of former police officers DG Vanzara and Narendra Amin, who have moved special CBI court here requesting the prosecution case be dropped against them. Lawyer for Shamima Kauser, mother of Ishrat Jahan, on Tuesday argued that the court should proceed against the duo by framing charges.</p>.<p class="title">Appearing for Kauser, senior advocate Vrinda Grover argued before the special judge J K Pandya in detail, explaining how the probe was initiated on direction of Gujarat High Court and eventually taken over the CBI, which established that Ishrat and three others including her friend Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai and two alleged Pakistani nationals were murdered in cold blood.</p>.<p class="title">Grover reminded the court that it had rejected the discharge applications of both the accused while holding that “there is a prima facie case against them.”</p>.<p class="title">Vanzara and Amin have sought dropping of the prosecution case against them on the ground that state government refused to permit CBI to prosecute them under section 197 of the code of criminal procedure (CrPC). Under this section, a prior sanction is mandated in a criminal case against government servant.</p>.<p class="title">Grover argued that the acts, as established by CBI in the chargesheet, of the two accused don’t reveal that they were discharging their duties. She said that Ishrat and three others were first “abducted, kept in illegal confinement, then murdered, evidence destroyed, and records were fudged.” While citing various judgments, she said that even illegal detention of any suspect doesn’t amount to discharging of duty.</p>.<p class="title">“There was no criminal antecedent of Ishrat, yet they chose to murder my daughter. They abducted her, kept in illegal conferment and killed her,” Grover argued on behalf Kauser. She told the court that there is no mandatory prohibition on framing charges for want of sanction.</p>.<p class="title">Criticising the CBI, she said that “why CBI didn’t clarify the legal position of law I can’t explain. They have left to the victim’s mother to fight. While those who have power remain silent.” She also said that the state government’s decision to deny sanction to prosecute can’t override the judicial appreciation of this case in which the court itself has held that there is a prima facie case. She said that state government, in the past too, had tried to derail the probe.</p>.<p class="title">The CBI, on the other hand, reiterated that the court should decide the pleas of Vanzara and Amin “in accordance with the law.” Although CBI never said that it opposes the pleas of the two accused former policemen, it reminded the court of its past replies that there is no need for sanction to prosecute the accused.</p>