<p>The central bureau of investigation on Saturday opposed discharge applications of four remaining accused policemen in 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The agency stated in its reply that the accused have been charge-sheeted for conspiracy, abduction, illegal confinement and murder, among other charges and therefore, the pleas should be rejected.</p>.<div dir="ltr"><div>The four accused including Inspector General of Police G L Singhal, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police Tarun Barot, J G Parmar and Police Sub-Inspector Anaju Chaudhary have sought to be discharged on the ground of parity with co-accused ex-Director General of Police P P Pandey, Deputy Inspector General of Police DG Vanzara and ex Superintendent of Police N K Amin.</div><div> </div><div>The CBI submitted a four-page reply before the special CBI court mentioning past orders of the court which had rejected Vanzara and Amin's discharge pleas while holding there was prima facie evidence against them. Later, the court dropped the proceeding against both of them in absence of permission to prosecute government servants under section 197 of CrPC.</div><div> </div><div>The CBI reply carries excerpts of previous court orders wherein the agency took a stand that in a case involving abduction, conspiracy and murder, among other charges, there is no requirement of getting prior sanction from the government to prosecute government servants. It also says that in case of Vanzara and Amin, the agency sought permission from Gujarat government following a court order.</div><div> </div><div>As a matter of fact, the court had asked the CBI to make its stand clear on whether it wants to get sanction from the state government or not. The CBI chose to approach the state government which eventually denied it the permission. Based on this denial, Vanzara and Amin, alleged to be key accused in the case, were dropped by the court from facing trial. Yet, the CBI recently told the court in writing that "competent authorities" have accepted the orders on Vanzara and Amin and would not challenge them.</div><div> </div><div>It was after this submission that four remaining accused also moved discharge pleas on the ground of parity with other three accused who have been exonerated. In the meanwhile, CBI informed that court it had served the notice issued to Ishrat Jahan's mother Shamima Kauser and another victim Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai's father Gopinath has passed away. The court asked CBI counsel to contact Kauser's lawyer to appear in the court if she intends to contest the litigation.</div><div> </div><div>Ishrat Jahan was killed in 2004 along with Pillai and two Pakistani nationals-Amjadali Rana and Zeeshan Johar in the outskirts of Ahmedabad on the suspicion of being a member of terror organisation who were on a mission to kill the then chief minister Narendra Modi and various saffron leaders.</div></div>
<p>The central bureau of investigation on Saturday opposed discharge applications of four remaining accused policemen in 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case. The agency stated in its reply that the accused have been charge-sheeted for conspiracy, abduction, illegal confinement and murder, among other charges and therefore, the pleas should be rejected.</p>.<div dir="ltr"><div>The four accused including Inspector General of Police G L Singhal, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police Tarun Barot, J G Parmar and Police Sub-Inspector Anaju Chaudhary have sought to be discharged on the ground of parity with co-accused ex-Director General of Police P P Pandey, Deputy Inspector General of Police DG Vanzara and ex Superintendent of Police N K Amin.</div><div> </div><div>The CBI submitted a four-page reply before the special CBI court mentioning past orders of the court which had rejected Vanzara and Amin's discharge pleas while holding there was prima facie evidence against them. Later, the court dropped the proceeding against both of them in absence of permission to prosecute government servants under section 197 of CrPC.</div><div> </div><div>The CBI reply carries excerpts of previous court orders wherein the agency took a stand that in a case involving abduction, conspiracy and murder, among other charges, there is no requirement of getting prior sanction from the government to prosecute government servants. It also says that in case of Vanzara and Amin, the agency sought permission from Gujarat government following a court order.</div><div> </div><div>As a matter of fact, the court had asked the CBI to make its stand clear on whether it wants to get sanction from the state government or not. The CBI chose to approach the state government which eventually denied it the permission. Based on this denial, Vanzara and Amin, alleged to be key accused in the case, were dropped by the court from facing trial. Yet, the CBI recently told the court in writing that "competent authorities" have accepted the orders on Vanzara and Amin and would not challenge them.</div><div> </div><div>It was after this submission that four remaining accused also moved discharge pleas on the ground of parity with other three accused who have been exonerated. In the meanwhile, CBI informed that court it had served the notice issued to Ishrat Jahan's mother Shamima Kauser and another victim Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai's father Gopinath has passed away. The court asked CBI counsel to contact Kauser's lawyer to appear in the court if she intends to contest the litigation.</div><div> </div><div>Ishrat Jahan was killed in 2004 along with Pillai and two Pakistani nationals-Amjadali Rana and Zeeshan Johar in the outskirts of Ahmedabad on the suspicion of being a member of terror organisation who were on a mission to kill the then chief minister Narendra Modi and various saffron leaders.</div></div>