Sohrabuddin fake encounter case: Bombay High Court says not getting enough assistance from CBI 

The High Court said that the CBI had failed to adequately assist it due to which it was still unclear on the agency's overall case.

Published: 21st February 2018 08:00 PM  |   Last Updated: 21st February 2018 08:00 PM   |  A+A-

Bombay High Court (File | PTI)


MUMBAI: Almost two weeks after it began day-to-day hearing on petitions challenging the discharge of police officials in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case, the Bombay High Court today said that the CBI had failed to adequately assist it due to which it was still unclear on the agency's overall case.

Justice Revati Mohite-Dere said the CBI had failed to put all evidence on record including the prima facie evidence against those discharged to assess whether the same warranted that they be discharged from the case.

"It is the primary duty of a prosecuting agency to place all evidence on record before the court.

However, in this case, despite the court's repeated queries, the CBI has chosen to argue only on the role of the two officials whose discharge it has challenged," Justice Mohite-Dere said.

"I am still unclear on the prosecution's overall case since I am not getting enough assistance from the CBI," the judge said.

The court has now directed the CBI to submit details of all the witnesses' statements recorded under section 164 of the CrPC.

Since February 9 this year, when the hearings in the case began, each time that the court has sought documents like the charge sheet, witness statements, or, seized letters related to the case, the CBI has maintained that it did not have the papers and sought time to procure it.

The CBI's conduct had irked the court on previous occasions as well.

Last week, after the CBI sought time to produce a transcript from a voice recorder, Justice Mohite-Dere had said, "This is not how a premier probe agency is expected to work.

You have to ensure all documents pertaining to the case are kept handy whenever this court wants to peruse them.

" The court is hearing two petitions filed by the CBI, and another three filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging the discharge of five of the 14 police officers by a special CBI court in the alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and their aide Tulsiram Prajapati.

Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi were killed in an alleged fake encounter by the Gujarat police in November 2005, while Prajapati was killed in another alleged fake encounter by the Gujarat and Rajasthan police in December 2006.

Of the 38 persons charged by the CBI in the case as accused, 15, including senior IPS officers DG Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandiyan, Dinesh MN and BJP president Amit Shah, were discharged by the special CBI court in Mumbai between August 2016 and September 2017.

While the CBI has challenged the discharge of retired Gujarat IPS officer NK Amin and constable Dalpat Singh Rathod, Rubabuddin has challenged the discharge of Vanzara, Dinesh MN, and Pandian.

Currently, the HC is hearing the arguments of Rubabuddin's lawyer challenging the discharge of Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandian.

Rubabuddin has told the HC that Pandian, along with the then Gujarat ATS chief DG Vanzara and Rajasthan IPS officer Dinesh MN, was part of the conspiracy to abduct and kill Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi.

He also said that Pandian was part of the police team that had abducted the victim from a luxury bus that they were traveling in, but the Gujarat police, which initially probed the case, had failed to conduct an identification parade to get witnesses from the bus to identify the accused police personnel.

He told the HC today that after the encounter, Pandian and Vanzara also threatened and coerced several witnesses into giving false statements to support their case.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp