Ex-bureaucrat challenges reprieve to Amit Shah
SOHRABUDDIN SHEIKH FAKE ENCOUNTER CASE
Harsh Mander has alleged that the BJP president being discharged from the case was ‘against the society at large’, even as the CBI has said that Mander has ‘no locus standi’ to interfere in the case.
BJP president Amit Shah’s discharge from the Sohrabuddin Sheikh, Tulsi Prajapati and Kausar Bi fake encounter cases have been challenged afresh by a former bureaucrat in the Bombay High Court, just days after another high court judge allowed Rubabuddin – Sohrabuddin’s brother and complainant in the case -- to withdraw his challenge to Shah’s discharge by the sessions court.
The fresh application by Delhi based author, columnist and former bureaucrat Harsh Mander, represented by senior advocate Anand Grover and advocate Zehra Charania, has sparked a legal battle, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also jumping intro the fray to oppose the plea. The CBI has never challenged Shah’s discharge.
Mander, in his application, said the case was “against the society at large”, warranting his interference despite the fact that he is neither a complainant nor a direct victim of the crime. “Crimes like these are considered to be a crime against the society, therefore, even the petitioner is a victim in some sense,” argued his lawyer before the Bombay HC last week.
Earlier, another private citizen had filed an intervention application in Rubabuddin’s earlier plea to quash Shah’s discharge, seeking to condone his delay in approaching the HC against the sessions court order. That application was rejected by the HC, which observed that the private citizen had no locus standi when the complainant (Sohrabuddin’s brother) had filed an application himself.
Mander’s application seeks an inquiry into the entire episode pertaining to the withdrawal of the challenge filed by Rubabuddin. “The attempt of withdrawal of the matter by Rubabuddin appears to be a suspicious act, infers that all manners of threat, inducement and promise would have been brought to bear on Rubabuddin for this purpose,” Mander’s application said.
The sections over which the legal battle is being fought are the Criminal Procedure Code sections 397 and 482. Section 379 is a section under which the discharge order by the lower court can be challenged by a person directly concerned with the case. However, Mander’s application argues that his application can be entertained under Section 482, which has an overriding effect over other sections and gives much wider powers to the HC.
Senior advocate S V Raju for Shah, and additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the CBI, have opposed Mander’s locus standi to challenge the order, stating that when Rubabuddin – a direct victim in the eyes of law – has withdrawn the challenge, Mander cannot be allowed a ‘back door entry’. They cited various Supreme Court judgments, which were brushed aside by Mander’s lawyers with the claim that they did not directly affect the case at hand.
Mander in his main application has cited the contents of the CBI chargesheet in detail to demonstrate that Shah was allegedly completely hand-in-glove with the police officers who executed the fake encounters. Various conversations with the other accused as well as with witnesses have been set out in detail in the application to show that there was enough evidence to put Shah to trial and that the sessions court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence against Shah while hearing the discharge application. The argument has been dismissed by Shah’s legal representatives.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, after hearing the arguments last week, has now posted the case for 2016.
Harsh Mander has alleged that the BJP president being discharged from the case was ‘against the society at large’, even as the CBI has said that Mander has ‘no locus standi’ to interfere in the case.
BJP president Amit Shah’s discharge from the Sohrabuddin Sheikh, Tulsi Prajapati and Kausar Bi fake encounter cases have been challenged afresh by a former bureaucrat in the Bombay High Court, just days after another high court judge allowed Rubabuddin – Sohrabuddin’s brother and complainant in the case -- to withdraw his challenge to Shah’s discharge by the sessions court.
The sessions court had accepted Shah’s petition and discharged him on December 30 last year from the ongoing criminal case involving Sohrabuddin Sheikh’s death while in police custody.
The fresh application by Delhi based author, columnist and former bureaucrat Harsh Mander, represented by senior advocate Anand Grover and advocate Zehra Charania, has sparked a legal battle, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also jumping intro the fray to oppose the plea. The CBI has never challenged Shah’s discharge.
Mander, in his application, said the case was “against the society at large”, warranting his interference despite the fact that he is neither a complainant nor a direct victim of the crime. “Crimes like these are considered to be a crime against the society, therefore, even the petitioner is a victim in some sense,” argued his lawyer before the Bombay HC last week.
Earlier, another private citizen had filed an intervention application in Rubabuddin’s earlier plea to quash Shah’s discharge, seeking to condone his delay in approaching the HC against the sessions court order. That application was rejected by the HC, which observed that the private citizen had no locus standi when the complainant (Sohrabuddin’s brother) had filed an application himself.
Mander’s application seeks an inquiry into the entire episode pertaining to the withdrawal of the challenge filed by Rubabuddin. “The attempt of withdrawal of the matter by Rubabuddin appears to be a suspicious act, infers that all manners of threat, inducement and promise would have been brought to bear on Rubabuddin for this purpose,” Mander’s application said.
The sections over which the legal battle is being fought are the Criminal Procedure Code sections 397 and 482. Section 379 is a section under which the discharge order by the lower court can be challenged by a person directly concerned with the case. However, Mander’s application argues that his application can be entertained under Section 482, which has an overriding effect over other sections and gives much wider powers to the HC.
Senior advocate S V Raju for Shah, and additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the CBI, have opposed Mander’s locus standi to challenge the order, stating that when Rubabuddin – a direct victim in the eyes of law – has withdrawn the challenge, Mander cannot be allowed a ‘back door entry’. They cited various Supreme Court judgments, which were brushed aside by Mander’s lawyers with the claim that they did not directly affect the case at hand.
Mander in his main application has cited the contents of the CBI chargesheet in detail to demonstrate that Shah was allegedly completely hand-in-glove with the police officers who executed the fake encounters. Various conversations with the other accused as well as with witnesses have been set out in detail in the application to show that there was enough evidence to put Shah to trial and that the sessions court had erred in its evaluation of the evidence against Shah while hearing the discharge application. The argument has been dismissed by Shah’s legal representatives.
Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, after hearing the arguments last week, has now posted the case for 2016.
