The CBI had alleged that Pandiyan was involved in the abduction of Sohrabuddin and was present at the spot of the alleged ‘staged’ encounter. (Representational Image)
A SPECIAL CBI court has rejected Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandiyan’s application seeking return of his passport. Pandiyan had sought his passport back to attend a police training programme in Canada, for which he was nominated by the Gujarat police.
Pandiyan was an accused in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged fake encounter case and was discharged by the special court on August 25, 2016. The discharge was challenged by Rubabuddin Sheikh, brother of Sohrabuddin. The Bombay High Court is currently hearing the case.
Special Judge S J Sharma observed that the passport cannot be returned till the high court grants Pandiyan permission to leave India, as the matter was subjudice. The application filed by Pandiyan had stated that the Government of Gujarat had nominated three police officers, including him, to attend the International Bilateral Training Programme offered by Canadian Police College, Ottawa, Canada.
“It is also to be noted here that the letter of Government of Gujarat…speaks about the nomination of three police officers to send them for training. There is no whisper in this letter giving the specific date and month of sending these officers. In this background, I am not convinced with the submission…to allow application and return the passport,” the court said. The court also allowed Pandiyan the liberty to approach the HC for appropriate orders.
Pandiyan was the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Terrorism Squad, Gujarat, at the time of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged fake encounter, in November 2005. The CBI had alleged that Pandiyan was involved in the abduction of Sohrabuddin and was present at the spot of the alleged ‘staged’ encounter.
The then Special Judge MS Gosavi, while discharging Pandiyan, had observed that the evidence against him was “weak and tainted”.
In his discharge plea, Pandiyan had also said that since no sanction was given by the state government to prosecute him, he cannot be charged in the case. He had claimed that his action was within the discharge of his duty. The court had observed that the prosecution “ought to have obtained sanction to prosecute him”.