Sohrabuddin Shaikh ‘fake’ encounter: Bombay HC verdict on pleas challenging discharge of top cops likely today

Justice A M Badar, who began hearing all the six applications from July 4, reserved the judgment in August.

During the first hearing, Rubabuddin’s lawyer Gautam Tiwari began by arguing against the discharge granted to Pandiyan by the lower court on August 25, 2016. As Tiwari referred to the statement of a key witness who is a police driver, advocate Raja Thakare, representing Dinesh M N, told the court that the key witness has turned hostile in the lower court. Tiwari responded by saying that the court was at a stage of framing charges against Pandiyan, and therefore the conduct of witnesses in the trial court should have no bearing on the present case.

Justice Badar had taken note of a large number of witnesses turning hostile in the case. “We have seen in newspapers that… everybody is turning hostile,” Justice Badar said, adding that the would not let the defence take advantage of anybody turning hostile.

During the next hearing, Vanzara and Pandiyan’s lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani told the court that he would be submitting additional evidence under 391 of Criminal Procedure Code, according to which appellate court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken. To this, Justice Badar had asked Jethmalani it would see later if the evidence should be accepted or not.

On November 22, 2005, Sohrabuddin and his wife boarded a private luxury bus from Hyderabad to go to Sangli, Maharashtra, to visit a doctor. The bus was allegedly chased by the police, overtaken near Zaheerabad in what was then Andhra Pradesh. Sohrabuddin, wife Kausarbi and their associate Tulsiram Prajapati were then allegedly abducted.

Tiwari had argued that the bus was overtaken by a Qualis and a Tata Sumo in which Pandiyan and his team were travelling. Tiwari read out various statements of witnesses to show that the Qualis was allegedly arranged by Pandiyan. He said statements of the passengers, bus conductor and the bus driver corroborated the prosecution case that the bus was overtaken by policemen in plainclothes. Some of the witnesses had even identified pictures of the three passengers who were abducted, Tiwari had said. Most of the statements read out by Tiwari in court were by witnesses who subsequently turned hostile in the trial court. All the accused policemen had sought discharge on the ground that prosecution sanction under Section 197 had not been granted.

On many occasions, Justice Badar while hearing the applications, asked CBI regarding the status of the trial and the witnesses.

Jethmalani, while arguing for Pandiyan, had told the court that CBI has concocted the story of Pandiyan’s visit to Hyderabad for the purpose of abducting Sohrabuddin. Pandiyan was implicated in the case because he was a “top-class intelligence officer”.

“The probe agency in the case has a history of working on a premeditated mandate and truth comes out in trial. In the Ishrat Jahan case, the CBI locked horns with the Intelligence Bureau. So, it is not hard to believe that it fabricated the evidence in the present case,” Jethmalani had said.

Tiwari while arguing on the plea of Vanzara, had told the court that the Gujarat DIG was the mastermind who hatched the conspiracy to kill Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram Prajapati. He claimed that Vanzara had summoned sub-inspector Ashish A Pandya, who was on vacation at that time, to take part in Tulsiram’s alleged encounter. During the hearing, CBI made its stand clear before the court and said it was not opposing the discharge of Vanzara, Pandiyan and Dinesh.