NEWSLETTER

Sign up to read weekly email newsletter

13 years 🥳 of Publication, 100k+ Stories, 30+ Countries

Legal Desire Media and Insights
Donate
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Reading: Won’t challenge discharge of officers in Sohrabuddin case: CBI tells Bombay HC
Share
Aa
Legal Desire Media and InsightsLegal Desire Media and Insights
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Follow US
Legal Desire Media & Insights
Home » Blog » Won’t challenge discharge of officers in Sohrabuddin case: CBI tells Bombay HC
News

Won’t challenge discharge of officers in Sohrabuddin case: CBI tells Bombay HC

By Bhavya Dubey 5 Min Read
Share

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Bombay High Court on Monday that it will not challenge the recent discharge of any of the senior IPS officers in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case.

CBI counsel Sandesh Patil and Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh told the HC that the agency had already challenged the discharge of some junior officers in the case. However, the CBI had decided not to challenge the trial court order that absolved senior officers, including former deputy inspector general of Gujarat D G Vanzara, Rajasthan IPS officer Dinesh MN, and Gujarat IPS officer Rajkumar Pandiyan, in connection with the alleged fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his aide Tulsiram Prajapati, they said.

The CBI’s submissions came while a single bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere was hearing a revision application filed by Sohrabuddin Shaikh’s brother Rubabuddin Shaikh, challenging the trial court orders of discharge of these officers.

The trial court had in 2016 and last year discharged Pandiyan, Vanzara and Dinesh MN. Rubabuddin Shaikh has filed separate petitions challenging the discharge of the three officers from the case. However, his counsel advocate Gautam Tiwari told the high court today that while they had been able to serve notices to Dinesh MN and Pandiyan in the case, they had been unable to trace the address or contact details of Vanzara.

The high court had earlier directed the CBI to provide Vanzara’s address to the petitioner, but Tiwari said the central agency had provided an incorrect address. The court today directed the CBI to trace Vanzara’s whereabouts and serve him the notice directing him to present his side of the case in the HC on the next date of hearing.

“The CBI is a premier probe agency. It should not encounter any impediment in finding the respondent’s (Vanzara’s) whereabouts, or getting his address. We often direct the investigating officers to serve notices, so in this case the CBI should do it to avoid further delays in hearing,” Justice Mohite-Dere said.

The special CBI court in Mumbai, hearing the case after the Supreme Court ordered for the trial to be transferred out of Gujarat, had discharged the above three officials on the ground that the CBI had failed to get prior sanction or the special permission to prosecute them.

However, on a previous hearing, Justice Mohite-Dere had questioned whether the lack of such sanction alone could be an adequate reason to warrant an accused person’s discharge from the case. She had also dismissed the CBI’s argument that it had challenged the discharge of two Rajasthan police sub-inspectors Himanshu Singh and Shyam Singh Charan and senior Gujarat police officer N K Amin.

The judge had observed that while the CBI was opposing the discharge of sub-inspectors and constables, it had conveniently gone quiet on the discharge of most of the senior IPS officers. Today, advocate Tiwari told the high court that while the CBI had challenged Singh and Charan’s discharge in 2016, the pleas were yet to be taken up for hearing by the HC.

The high court has now tagged together all the pleas filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh and the CBI in the case, and will hear them together on January 29. Of the 38 people accused in the case, 15, including 14 IPS officers, have been discharged by the special court.

The CBI has challenged the discharge of two junior officers, and one of the 14 senior officers (N K Amin) accused in the alleged fake encounter cases of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kauser Bi, and also that of Ishrat Jahan.

Sohrabuddin Shaikh and his wife were allegedly abducted by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad from Hyderabad on their way to Sangli in Maharashtra. Shaikh was killed in an alleged fake encounter near Gandhinagar in November 2005, after which his wife disappeared.

Prajapati, an aide of Shaikh and an eyewitness to the encounter, was allegedly killed by police in Chapri village in Gujarat’s Banaskantha district in December 2006. Vanzara, who was heading the ATS at the time, was charged by the CBI for having conspired with the other accused officials to kill Shaikh and the other victims and pass the incident off as an encounter.

You Might Also Like

Herbert Smith Freehills and Kramer Levin Finalize Merger, Creating $2B Global Law Firm

Reddit Sues Anthropic Over AI Data Use

BCI Rules for Foreign Law Firms in India, Register your Law Firm in India

Amber Heard Loses Appeal in Insurance Battle Linked to Johnny Depp Defamation Case

October 2024 Depo Provera Lawsuit Update

Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Bhavya Dubey January 15, 2018
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Herbert Smith Freehills and Kramer Levin Finalize Merger, Creating $2B Global Law Firm

June 2, 2025 – Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel have completed their transatlantic merger, forming Herbert…

News
June 5, 2025

Reddit Sues Anthropic Over AI Data Use

Reddit has filed a lawsuit against Anthropic, an AI startup, alleging unauthorised scraping of its user-generated content to train Anthropic's…

News
June 5, 2025

BCI Rules for Foreign Law Firms in India, Register your Law Firm in India

In May 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) officially notified new rules (via the Gazette dated 14 May 2025)…

Law Firm & In-house UpdatesNews
May 24, 2025

Amber Heard Loses Appeal in Insurance Battle Linked to Johnny Depp Defamation Case

Amber Heard's legal woes continue as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected her appeal against New…

NewsRead to Know
November 30, 2024

For over 10 years, Legal Desire provides credible legal industry updates and insights across the globe.

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Legal Marketing Service for Law Firms and Lawyers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Condition
  • Cancellation/Refund Policy

Follow US: 

Legal Desire Media & Insights

For Submissions/feedbacks/sponsorships/advertisement/syndication: office@legaldesire.com

Legal Desire Media & Insights 2023

✖
Cleantalk Pixel

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?