The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the petition seeking a fresh investigation into the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister, Haren Pandya..However, the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, questioned the petitioner regarding filing a fresh, independent petition when a criminal appeal regarding the same was already pending in Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, arguing for the petitioner organisation, submitted that fresh evidence has come to light, warranting a fresh probe into the case..The petition, however, was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the point of maintainability, citing absence of locus. He argued,.“This is a brazen attempt of abuse of process by the petitioner.”.Justice Arun Mishra also questioned Advocate Prashant Bhushan on why CPIL chose to file a fresh writ under Article 32 when the Court was already hearing the criminal appeal in the case. He also asked Bhushan why this fact was not mentioned in the PIL filed by CPIL. He said,.“Criminal appeal was being heard and then you file a petition during the pendency of the appeal. What was the purpose of that? We are not averse to any material, but the law requires everything to be filed in the criminal appeal, not in an independent petition. Why are you filing independent petitions in parallel proceedings?”.Bhushan pointed out that that the Supreme Court has, on previous occasions, directed for fresh investigations when new material has emerged..The Court then reserved its verdict in the petition..Pandya was found murdered in Ahmedabad in 2003. After the murder was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the trial court had convicted 12 persons. However, the Gujarat High Court had acquitted them, while noting that the investigating agency has shown ineptitude in its investigation..The petition, which has arraigned the Central government and the CBI as parties, places reliance on the testimony of one of the witnesses in the another controversial case – the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case..As per the petition, the witness, Azam Khan, was produced as a prosecution witness and during his examination before the trial court on November 3, 2018 revealed that Sohrabuddin had told him that a contract to kill Haren Pandya had been given to him by a Gujarat cadre IPS officer DG Vanzara and that Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati along with one Naeem and a Shahid Rampuri had murdered Haren Pandya in pursuance of that contract..The petitioner has placed reliance on a Times of India report of 2013, wherein DG Vanzara is himself reported to have told the CBI that Sohrabuddin was involved in Pandya’s murder and that the murder was a part of a political conspiracy..The petition also cites the book Gujarat Files written by Journalist Rana Ayyub, as per which a sting operation conducted on a police officer YA Shaikh corroborates that the murder of Pandya was a result of political conspiracy. Shaikh, who had started the investigation before the same was handed over to the CBI, told Ayyub that Haren Pandya’s murder was a political conspiracy and that the CBI had not conducted any investigation on its own. He also told her that the person accused of shooting Pandya was already in police custody before the murder as too the eye-witnesses in the case, who was tutored by the CBI..CPIL has thus has made the following prayers:.Produce the statement dated 2010 of DG Vanzara to the CBIDirect an inquiry into the circumstances in which an identity sketch of the assassin drawn on 27/3/2003 which matches Tulsiram Prajapati more than the accused put on trial and the nature of investigation done on the sameOrder fresh-investigation of the murder of Shri Haren Pandya under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court; and/or,Order an inquiry against the officers who conducted the earlier investigation and hold the errant officials accountable for the botched up investigation.Last week, the Supreme Court had listed the matter before the Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra.
The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the petition seeking a fresh investigation into the murder of former Gujarat Home Minister, Haren Pandya..However, the Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, questioned the petitioner regarding filing a fresh, independent petition when a criminal appeal regarding the same was already pending in Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Shanti Bhushan, arguing for the petitioner organisation, submitted that fresh evidence has come to light, warranting a fresh probe into the case..The petition, however, was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on the point of maintainability, citing absence of locus. He argued,.“This is a brazen attempt of abuse of process by the petitioner.”.Justice Arun Mishra also questioned Advocate Prashant Bhushan on why CPIL chose to file a fresh writ under Article 32 when the Court was already hearing the criminal appeal in the case. He also asked Bhushan why this fact was not mentioned in the PIL filed by CPIL. He said,.“Criminal appeal was being heard and then you file a petition during the pendency of the appeal. What was the purpose of that? We are not averse to any material, but the law requires everything to be filed in the criminal appeal, not in an independent petition. Why are you filing independent petitions in parallel proceedings?”.Bhushan pointed out that that the Supreme Court has, on previous occasions, directed for fresh investigations when new material has emerged..The Court then reserved its verdict in the petition..Pandya was found murdered in Ahmedabad in 2003. After the murder was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the trial court had convicted 12 persons. However, the Gujarat High Court had acquitted them, while noting that the investigating agency has shown ineptitude in its investigation..The petition, which has arraigned the Central government and the CBI as parties, places reliance on the testimony of one of the witnesses in the another controversial case – the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case..As per the petition, the witness, Azam Khan, was produced as a prosecution witness and during his examination before the trial court on November 3, 2018 revealed that Sohrabuddin had told him that a contract to kill Haren Pandya had been given to him by a Gujarat cadre IPS officer DG Vanzara and that Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati along with one Naeem and a Shahid Rampuri had murdered Haren Pandya in pursuance of that contract..The petitioner has placed reliance on a Times of India report of 2013, wherein DG Vanzara is himself reported to have told the CBI that Sohrabuddin was involved in Pandya’s murder and that the murder was a part of a political conspiracy..The petition also cites the book Gujarat Files written by Journalist Rana Ayyub, as per which a sting operation conducted on a police officer YA Shaikh corroborates that the murder of Pandya was a result of political conspiracy. Shaikh, who had started the investigation before the same was handed over to the CBI, told Ayyub that Haren Pandya’s murder was a political conspiracy and that the CBI had not conducted any investigation on its own. He also told her that the person accused of shooting Pandya was already in police custody before the murder as too the eye-witnesses in the case, who was tutored by the CBI..CPIL has thus has made the following prayers:.Produce the statement dated 2010 of DG Vanzara to the CBIDirect an inquiry into the circumstances in which an identity sketch of the assassin drawn on 27/3/2003 which matches Tulsiram Prajapati more than the accused put on trial and the nature of investigation done on the sameOrder fresh-investigation of the murder of Shri Haren Pandya under the supervision of this Hon’ble Court; and/or,Order an inquiry against the officers who conducted the earlier investigation and hold the errant officials accountable for the botched up investigation.Last week, the Supreme Court had listed the matter before the Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra.
