Ishrat case: Plot thickens, CBI silent on whereabouts of 4 crucial links
Satish Jha Posted online: Sat Jul 20 2013, 02:04 hrs
Ahmedabad : The CBI, which is probing the 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case, is yet to crack the mystery of four people whose names figure in the chargesheet it filed in a court here early this month.
According to CBI, Meraj Idrisi, Javabhai, Asad and Owaish played curious roles in the entire saga but have not been traced so far.
Meraj and Java were reportedly close associates of Javed Sheikh, who was killed along with Ishrat and two others in the June 15, 2004 police encounter near Ahmedabad. Asad and Owaish were made out to be informers of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau.
The CBI is silent on the whereabouts of the four.
Meraj, a resident of Ibrahimpur in Faizabad district of UP, has been shown in various testimonies as having met Javed in Dubai.
Meraj’s wife Salma Banu told the CBI that soon after her marriage in February 2004, she was taken to Mumbai where she stayed at Meraj’s aunt’s place. “In April 2004, one Javed of Pune and a lady named Ishrat Jahan came to my house (Mumbra at Meraj’s aunt’s place). Javed was introduced to me by my husband as his friend who he knew when he was in Dubai,” Salma told CBI. She also talks about one Salimbhai. “Salimbhai was having an injury on his shoulder...he was wearing bandage on his body.”
In June 2004, Meraj reportedly told Salma he had to rush to Dubai. Two days after his departure, police came to their house looking for him and took away some papers. Since then, Meraj never returned. “Whenever he came to India, I used to go to Delhi and meet him at my sister’s house,” Salma told the CBI.
Salma’s statement corroborates Meraj’s sister Sayifa Banu, who says that in April, her brother’s friends Javed, Ishrat and Salim had stayed at Ibrahimpur. She has told the CBI, “Salimbhai was having a black bag with him and a mobile phone which was quite big. He didn’t use the mobile in our presence and used to go to the terrace to talk.”
Javabhai’s name figures in the statement of Asif Iqbal Sheikh, whom Sajida married after her husband Javed’s death in the 2004 encounter. He has said Javed and Javabhai of Al Rehman Enterprises in Mumbai had started the business of supplying manpower to companies at Dubai in January-February 2004. Sheikh has stated that Sajida was getting constant calls from one Ranjit from Kerala to give his passport and money back, which was with Javabhai. Therefore, Sheikh took Sajida and met Javabhai at his shop Al Rehman Enterprises. Sheikh says, “We met Javabhai who promised to pay back the money. When he was asked if he had any role in Javed’s encounter, he just told us to go back as he didn’t want to talk in this regard.”
According to Sheikh, he later learnt Javabhai had gone absconding.
Asad and Owaish find mention in the statement of accused police inspector Bharat A Patel, who described them as “sources of accused IPS officer GL Singhal”, the then ACP in the crime branch.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/1144274/
CBI charge sheet mentions Ishrat sought ammunition
Earlier on Friday, Firstpost published the entire CBI charge sheet, which contains a 24-paragraph charge establishing that the encounter of Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices Javed Sheikh, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar was fake. It charges seven IPS officers of the Gujarat police as of now. In regard to IB Joint Director Rajinder Kumar and three other IB officers, the charge sheet explains that further investigation is in progress against them. It also asks the Gujarat High Court for permission to continue investigation to “look into the other aspects of the offence.”
At the outset, it is useful to note that Tehelka had also claimed that it had a copy of the charge sheet as far back as July 3, 2013. As it turns out, the copy Tehelka uploaded is not the actual charge sheet.
This voluminous charge sheet contains 179 statements on primarily two aspects of this matter: (a) the events leading up to the encounter and the encounter itself including statements by forensic experts; and (b) facts which throw light on the background details of Ishrat and the three others. Gujarat High Court has already indicated to the CBI that it is not interested in knowing whether or not Ishrat and the three others were linked to the LeT. In that sense, much of category (b) information may not be relevant to High Court except insofar as there are discrepancies with information in category (a).
Events leading to the encounter
First, CBI’s account of events is more or less similar to the SP Tamang report and the SIT’s findings. What lends more credence to CBI’s account (although by no means is it conclusive) is that this account is now corroborated by testimonies of several officers and individuals. Indeed, these testimonies will be thoroughly examined / cross-examined as trial commences.
Second, the charge sheet confirms media reports on references to ‘kaali dadhi’ (black beard) and ‘safed dadhi’ (white beard). There are two statements of cops – Devendra H Goswami (p. 178) and Kishoresingh Waghela (p 313) – which refer to that. Note that these cops were formerly named in the FIR, but are not charged now. CBI is going to file a report on why they have been let off. Both cops state that DG Vanzara, one of the main accused officers, told them that he had got the green signal from MoS (Home) Amit Shah and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Both said that the ‘dadhi’ code words were common to refer to Shah and Modi. Do note that this evidence constitutes not just hearsay, but double hearsay as this author has pointed out. This is a case of X telling Y that A and B have given the go-ahead. Its admissibility in court is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Third, the charge sheet contains statement of RVS Mani, former officer in the MHA, who drafted the two affidavits before the Gujarat High Court of which the first one asserted that the four who died had LeT links. Do note that Mani’s statement (p 334-336) is not signed by him, but by an officer who recorded his statement. This is a statement under Section 161 of CrPC which, Mani has claimed, he was coerced to sign. He has reportedly filed a complaint against IPS officer Satish Verma who was a part of the CBI team until June 23, 2013.
While the statement in the charge sheet says that IB officials had brought a draft of the affidavit which was finalised before by his director. It also states that his personal discretion in the matter was “rather limited”. However, in a statement where he elaborates wild conspiracy theories of Verma, he denied that a draft was brought to him stating that his director, being an Income Tax Officer as well as a lawyer, did not require any other person to draft affidavit. There is apparently a contradiction between the two statements. Investigation into Mani’s complaint might reveal whether, and to what extent, he was coerced and whether his statement in the charge sheet contains any truth to it.
Background of Ishrat and her accomplices
Fourth, the charge sheet also contains a statement of Mohammad Wasi who states (p. 121) that his friend Miraj brought Javed and Ishrat to him asking how he could arrange for a pistol. Javed was using a satellite phone (which, normally, is not allowed without permission). Javed paid Wasi a total of Rs 3,500 to keep trying for arranging a gun.
Fifth, there is a statement of a receptionist of an Ahmedabad hotel, Manishkumar Christian, who stated (p. 130) that on May 26 and 27, 2004, Javed Sheikh and Ishrat Jahan stayed at the hotel as husband and wife under the name of S Rajesh Kumar and Smt Geeta respectively. This was confirmed by his colleague Paresh Lal.
Contrary to media reports,this writer has not found any reference to tapes of audio conversations provided by accused officer GL Singhal which reportedly contains conversations with Amit Shah as well as a meeting held in 2011 between law officers and Ministers of Modi Government for allegedly sabotaging the investigation.
To be sure, statements by cops who were named in FIR, but not charged, are pretty incriminating. They point to a nexus between the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau and the accused cops of the Gujarat police in detaining all four at different times and then killing them in cold blood. They also indicate a conspiracy prior to the encounter, of how it should happen.
The primary evidence with the CBI is a statement by cops and forensic experts. These statements need to withstand the entire trial process and rigorous cross-examination. This trial is likely to be a long one with fierce contests on facts and forensic evidence. The SIT as well as its interface with forensic experts has a chequered history as explained in this long Gujarat HC judgment and news reports. As long as this trial continues, political and other rivals of Modi will keep getting fodder to sensationalise things.
