CBI defends its action against Amit Shah

The CBI Thursday defended registration of two separate cases against former Gujarat minister Amit Shah and others in the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati in alleged fake encounters, saying they were not parts of the same conspiracy.

Additional Solicitor General H P Raval told an SC Bench led by Justice P Sathasivam that there were two distinct conspiracies; one to kill Sohrabddin and his wife Kausar Bi in a fake encounter in November 2005 and the second to murder Prajapati in 2006.

"The two incidents are separate and distinct. Prajapati was used to entrap Sohrabuddin and his role ended after the latter was trapped. The first conspiracy related to killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi and a separate conspiracy was later hatched to eliminate Prajapati when the incident of the first killing had already come to light," said Raval.

He contended there was no question of treating the investigation into Prajapati case as further investigation in Sohrabuddin matter or the second chargesheet as a supplementary chargesheet in the first case.

Raval also read out from the chargesheet recently submitted in the Prajapati case but the court made it clear that they would not examine the merit of the chargesheet and the ASG could cite it only for the purposes of putting forth certain facts. As the arguments remained inconclusive, the court deferred the matter for February 28.

Claiming that the CBI's endeavour was to jail him again in Prajapati case, Shah has moved the court against registration of separate FIRs in the two encounter cases and filing of two chargesheets.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus