Amit Shah, Narendra Modi's trusted aide, was let off by the CBI in Ishrat Jahan case. (File photo)
Kumar, a 1979-batch IPS officer, along with three of his subordinates, was also accused of kidnapping, illegal detention and for organizing arms which Gujarat cops allegedly placed on the bodies of Ishrat and her companions in order to make the encounter appear genuine. He becomes the first IB officer to have been charge-sheeted for an encounter.
Although Shah remains an accused in another "fake" encounter case, of alleged gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his exclusion from the chargesheet is a big boost for him as well as Modi. Shah is the pointperson for the 80-Lok Sabha seat Uttar Pradesh, winning which will be crucial for the Gujarat CM's powerful run for prime ministership. Besides being directly responsible for UP, Shah, a BJP general secretary, has been engaged in the overall campaign strategy and streamlining the poll effort in others states.
BJP welcomed CBI's decision as a validation of its claim that Shah was being framed for political reasons, and that a section within the CBI trumped up the case against him as part of Congress's effort to underline Modi ahead of Lok Sabha polls.
Shah had been accused of having masterminded the fake encounter to buff Modi's image as a strong leader.
Ishrat and three others were shot dead on June 15, 2004 near Kotarpur waterworks. After the killing, crime branch declared that they were Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives and were on a mission to kill Modi in order to avenge the 2002 riots. Probe later revealed that they were blindfolded and handcuffed from behind while being shot.
CBI counsel Ejaz Khan told the court, "Rajinder Kumar supplied arms to Gujarat police officer G L Singhal and therefore he has been named as main accused." The three junior IB officers who have been charge-sheeted are M K Sinha, T Mittal and Rajeev Wankhede. CBI has not arrested the IB officers and left it to the court to issue necessary directions.
Whether Kumar and his colleagues are actually tried or not will, to a very significant extent, depend on whether the home ministry gives sanction for their prosecution. Under Section 197 of CrPC, a police officer is entitled for protection against prosecution for any act of his that he performs in his official capacity. The courts are to factor in the view of the home ministry when they take cognizance of CBI's charge-sheet, but can overrule the government as has been happening with growing regularity.
Attorney general G E Vahanvati, who has been approached by the CBI for his opinion on the matter, is expected to give his views this week.
Kumar's inclusion among the accused in the Ishrat case has caused considerable resentment among his colleagues in the IB who feel CBI's move is fraught with the risk of hobbling counter-terror operations. They have, on the condition of anonymity, insisted that Kumar had successful gathered and passed on to Gujarat police credible inputs about the plans and movement of a Lashkar module. Sources in the IB and government said Kumar's role ended at that, and he could in no way be tied to the encounter, "fake or real", because he was not involved in carrying it out.
"Unlike many police officers who have been accused of settling their personal scores by framing their rivals as terrorists and eliminating them by staging encounters, he had no personal axe to grind. He only acted as per his mandate. It will be unfortunate if intelligence officials become victims of political tussles," said a senior intelligence source while rubbishing suggestions that Kumar had acted like a rogue operative.
While this view may sway the government in case Vahanvati comes up with the opinion that Kumar cannot be prosecuted without the sanction of the home ministry, courts have lately been overruling the opinion of the executive, the latest instance being that of the former Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan. Maharashtra governor K Sankarnarayanan had denied CBI sanction to prosecute Chavan for his alleged involvement in the Adarsh housing scam, but his stand become infructuous when the court ruled that CBI did not need the go-ahead.
Although one of the many cases of "encounter" of alleged terrorists and criminals in Gujarat during Modi's reign, the Ishrat case stood in a different league because of the complexities, including its timing and the involvement of IB which reports to the government at the Centre. The encounter happened after Congress-led UPA had assumed power in New Delhi.
The UPA government had initially, through affidavits filed in courts, maintained that the encounter was "genuine". It changed its stand later, attracting allegations of political vendetta from the Centre.
While Gujarat police have not been able to allay strong doubts about the genuineness of the "encounter", the case remains shrouded in intrigue because of factors including that Lashkar paid tribute to Ishrat, a young girl from the Mumbai suburb of Mumbra, as a martyr before disowning her.
Then, David Coleman Headley, who recced Mumbai for Lashkar's 26/11 attack, had told FBI that commanders of the jihadi group had told him about Ishrat's links with its members.
source - TOI
No comments:
Post a Comment