The court was hearing three revision applications filed by Rubabuddin challenging the discharge granted to former Deputy Inspector General of Gujarat D G Vanzara, former SP Udaipur Dinesh M Nand and Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandian. (Representational Image)
The CBI Tuesday refused to make any submissions in a revision application that seeks to set aside the discharge granted to former Gujarat Superintendent of Police Rajkumar Pandian, filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh. Rubabuddin is the brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh who was killed in an allegedly staged encounter in 2005. When Justice A M Badar asked the CBI if it was willing to make any submissions on the application, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh appearing for CBI, said the agency did not file the revision application challenging Pandian’s discharge. Justice Badar then closed the arguments in the application.
The court was hearing three revision applications filed by Rubabuddin challenging the discharge granted to former Deputy Inspector General of Gujarat D G Vanzara, former Superintendent of Police (SP) Udaipur Dinesh M Nand and Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandian. Along with these three applications, the court was hearing two applications filed by the CBI challenging the discharge of Rajasthan police constable Dalpat Singh Rathod and Gujarat police officer N K Amin. Dinesh is accused of travelling from Udaipur to Ahmedabad on November 24, 2005, to participate in the alleged fake encounter of Shaikh two days later.
Dinesh’s counsels, Raja Thakare and Bharat Manghani, argued that Udaipur is on the border of Gujarat and since it is a known fact that many criminals cross the border, the SP of Udaipur has to be alert and in constant communication with senior officials of other states. This was the only reason for the calls between Vanzara and Dinesh, Thakare told the court. Rubabuddin’s lawyer, Gautam Tiwari, had argued Monday that Vanzara and Dinesh were in contact prior to Sohrabuddin’s encounter as part of the alleged conspiracy to kill Sohrabuddin and their contact continued till the encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati.
Tiwari had said that Dinesh also played a “major role” in Prajapati’s encounter. But Thakare said the prosecution’s case defied logic because if Prajapati was a witness to the abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi, and was a potentially dangerous witness to an offence, why would Dinesh wait for a year to kill him?
Thakare told the court, “Any communication with the nodal officer is for official purposes and cannot be depicted as a conspiracy.” Thakare said the CBI had also decided not to challenge Dinesh’s discharge petition. “His discharge is at par with acquittal and cannot be interfered with unless the court finds it to be perverse,” said Thakare. Thakare said the key witness who testified to Dinesh’s presence at the spot of Sohrabuddin’s encounter, an ATS driver, has given no description of the SP, nor was any test identification parade conducted, and Dinesh was not even shown to or identified by the witness.
Thakare told the court, “Dinesh visited Gujarat once and it was for official work. He used the official vehicle to travel and stayed at the official mess — it was not a clandestine visit, therefore, it was not an objectionable act.” If there was any oblique intention, then Dinesh would not have used the official vehicle, Thakare said.
He added that Dinesh not only had permission to visit Ahmedabad from the Inspector General, which is confirmed by his letter, but also from the Director General of Police (DGP), which shows that the highest police officer of the state was kept informed. Since Dinesh’s visit was an official act, Section 197 (Prosecution of Judges and public servants) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be attracted. Thakare added that the DGP had announced a reward of Rs 25,000 for Sohrabuddin’s arrest.