Sohrabuddin: Bombay HC reserves order in PIL urging CBI to challenge Amit Shah’s discharge

The Bombay High Court today reserved judgment in a PIL filed by Bombay Lawyers Association (BLA) urging the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to challenge a 2014 order discharging BJP President Amit Shah in relation to the Sohrabuddin, Kauser Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati encounter killings..The Bench of Justices Ranjit More and Bharathi Harish Dangre reserved judgment after hearing the parties..The Bench spent the whole day hearing arguments made by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the petitioners, and Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, counsel for the CBI..The CBI raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the petition, with Singh arguing that it was filed for publicity..The Court asked the CBI if it had seriously taken challenging the discharge of Amit Shah from the cases into consideration. Although the CBI replied in the affirmative, there was no documentation before the Court to substantiate the same..Dave then began his arguments, describing the chain of events as “extraordinary”. He cited the Supreme Court order which handed over the investigation of the Sohrabuddin and Prajapati cases to the CBI. He said that though the CBI was expected to conduct an impartial investigation, the same was not done..He also highlighted the fact that the discharge of some of the accused in the encounter cases was challenged by the CBI, while that of Amit Shah was not challenged, without assigning any reasons for the same..The fact that the Supreme Court transferred the case from Gujarat to Maharashtra is of great significance, Dave argued..The CBI, on the other hand, asked why the discharge is being called into question now, when the order was passed by the trial court in 2014..Explaining the issue, advocate Ahmed Abdi of the BLA told Bar & Bench,.“The petition filed by Sohrabuddin’s brother, as well as another were withdrawn. In two other petitions, the petitioners were held to be without locus to approach the court. In criminal cases, unless you are affected, you cannot intervene..Our petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking Mandamus. It was the obligation of the CBI to conduct an impartial investigation and prosecution. But it has failed.”.He also alluded to the pressure previous petitioners have faced.“Individuals were not able to withstand the pressure, which is why an association of lawyers has filed this petition. The purpose of the BLA is to uphold the rule of law and to show that law is above everybody.”.In January this year, the BLA had filed a PIL praying that the CBI be directed to challenge Amit Shah’s discharge by a Special CBI court in the Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram Prajapati encounter cases..The petitioners contended that the CBI chose to challenge the discharge of three accused police officers in the case in 2014, but failed to challenge the discharge of Amit Shah. This, they had contended, is “arbitrary” and “reeks of malafide”..“The trial court has similarly discharged two Rajasthan police sub-inspectors Himanshu Singh and Shyam Singh Charan and senior Gujarat police officer N.K. Amin. The Petitioner has learnt that CBI has challenged their discharge before this Hon’ble Court. This act of CBI of challenging discharge of the accused persons on selective basis is arbitrary and unreasonable, rather malafide.”.Further, they had contended that the discharge of Amit Shah by the trial court was erroneous..“According to CBI, it had incontrovertible material and circumstances to establish the charges against Amitbhai Shah, which were accepted by the Supreme Court while deciding the Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 44/2011…Records of the case discussed in said judgment clearly establishes that there was sufficient ground to proceed against Shri Amit Shah. As such, order dated 30/12/2014 passed by the trial judge was clearly erroneous. The CBI ought to have challenge said order before this Hon’ble Court.”.The PIL also questions the transfer of the judge originally assigned to hear to the case by the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court, which the petitioners claim is violative of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in 2012..“The said cases were originally assigned to Shri J.T. Utpat, Special Judge, CBI, Mumbai. However, in June 2014, he was transferred to Pune and replaced by another Judge Shri B.H. Loya. The said act of transferring the judge, hearing Sohrabuddin case was in direct breach of the order dated 27/09/2013 passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is just, necessary and proper that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the minutes of Administrative Committee of this Hon’ble Court wherein decision to transfer the Judge Shri J.T. Utpat was taken to ascertain whether the same was just, reasonable and proper.”.Subsequently, Judge Loya passed away, and the case was heard by Judge MB Gosavi, who allowed Amit Shah’s discharge application in December 2014. The same went unchallenged by the CBI..In light of these facts, the BLA prayed for a direction to be issued to the CBI to file a criminal revision application challenging the December 2014 order passed by the Special CBI Judge, Mumbai, discharging Amit Shah from the case..Read the petition:.Read the order passed today:.Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.