G.I. Singhal, Tarun Barot, Anaju Chaudri V. C.B.I
Case No: 2 of 2013
Case Type: Special C.B.I Case
Applicants/Accused:
- G.I. Singhal – Accused No.4
- Tarun Barot – Accused No. 6
- Anaju Chaudri – Accused No. 7
Complainant: C.B.I
Decided On: 31.03.2021
Statues Referred:
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC).
- Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Referred:
- Manorama Tiwari vs. Surendra Nath RaiB 2116 (1) SCC 594.
- Matajog Dobey vs. H.C. Bhari, AIR 195/6 SC 44
- Sankaran Moitra vs. Sadhna Das & Anr.B AIR 2116 SC 1599.
- Devinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2116 SC 219
Justice: Vipul R. Raval.(Special Judge)
Facts:
The applicants were charged for the offence punishable U/S 120(B) read with sections 341,342, 343, 365, 368, 312 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25/(1)(e) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act.
The application consisted of a prayer to drop proceedings and to discharge them on the ground that the Government has declined prosecution sanction against them. The applicants applied for discharge application U/S 227 read with 197 of CRPC.
Issue:
Whether the accused are liable to discharge when the prosecution sanction is refused?
Whether the act of the applicants is one while discharge of its official duties.
Obiter dicta/Observation:
The advocates for the Applicants argued that since the Court has already decided that the offence alleged were committed while discharging their official duties by the accused police officers. The Government has declined the prosecution sanction then all the accused are entitled either for discharge or for dropping of the proceedings against them.
The P.P for the C.B.I argued that whether the alleged offence by the accused were committed in the discharge of official duty or not is to be decided only after the trail is proceeded. The sanction refused by the Government is made without application of mind and hence the present application should be dismissed.
The court held that in Exhibit – 355, 35, 357, the offences committed by the accused was while discharging their official duties and hence a sanction U/S 197 of CrPc was required. But the Government has already declined prosecution sanction therefore it is within the scope of the court to decide upon the application made by the applicants.
While disposing Exhibit – 355, 35, 357, the Court observed that:
- The alleged incident of encounter occurred on 15.06.2004 were the 4 alleged terrorist belonging to Lashkar-e-toiyba (LeT) died namely Jeeshan Johar, Jaanbaz, Abdulgani, Amjadali Akbarali Rana, Salim, Chandu, Rajkumar, Javed and Ishrat Jahan.
- The encounter was carried out upon the intelligence input of Central Intelligence Bureau, (IB) Union of India, were specific confidential inputs were shared, that two Pakistani Fidayeens left Kashmir to attempt a suicidal attack upon the then C.M of Gujrat, Narendra Modi.
- Where after the applicants /accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 and other police officers had arranged meeting and all were informed regarding intelligence input. While the other accused received another information that the two fidayeens left Mumbai for Ahmedabad in a blue color Indica Car bearing Registration No.MHB12BJAB4786 along with firearms and explosive.
- So consequently blockades were created to keep a watch upon the vehicles entering Ahmedabad. One of the team saw the blue Indica car taking turn towards airport road and thereafter the ACP ordered to fire on the tire of the car, where after the car struck the road divider.
- After which one of the terrorist started firing blindly with AK-56 rifle towards police officers. These attracted retaliation firing from the police and as a result the two terrorist in the car died including the woman terrorist.
In the investigation held by Shri Varma it was found that Ishrat Jahan with Javed were involved in the illegal activities of smuggling and counterfeit currency. Ishrat Jahan had knowledge of illegal activities of Javed before she joined him.
Also the Court held that the information given by IB was true and therefore Gujarat Police were duty bound to keep watch and supervision on the movement and activities of the above said four persons, who died in the encounter. The deceased persons were not common, simple and ordinary offenders, but they were alleged terrorists and having criminal history.
“The present applicants / accused police officers were duty bound to take necessary steps in order to maintain law and order. There cannot be any presumption of fake encounter on the part of any such police officers. They were to be more cautious and alert to maintain peace in the public at large”.
The CBI moved the Government in order to obtain sanction for prosecution which was denied by detailed explanation by the Home Department of Govt. of Gujarat.
The Public Prosecution contended that the sanction was refused without application of mind. However the Court held that the sanction order specifically mentioned that the records and reports received from the CBI were duly examined by the Home Department. Citing catena of judgement passed by the Supreme Court the order of sanction was refused by the department.
Ratio decedendi:
Based upon the order passed in Exhibit 355, 356, 357, the Court regarded that the acts done by the accused Police officers were well within the official capacity of the officers.
The inputs provided by the IB were true and genuine. That the Police officers in the discharge of their primary duty of maintain public order at large warrant the said event.
The investigation proceeds of Shri Varma that the four terrorist were involved in anti-social and terrorist activities. There cannot be any presumption of fake encounter on the part of police officers.
The order passed in Exhibit 355, 356, 357 were never challenged by the CBI or the mother of the victim. This implies that the CBI and the mother of the victim accepted the observation of the Court.
Also the sanction order by the central Government was never challenged by the CBI or mother of the victim.
David Headly the offender in the Mumbai 26/11 attack accepted that Ishrat Jahan was a LeT operative.
Judgment:
In the light of the observation of the Court, Justice Vipul R. Raval held:
That the Police officers were discharging their duties when the even in question occurred. This fact stands unchallenged with affirmative opinion by the central Government and Government of Gujarat.
There is nothing on record even prima facie to suggest that the victims were not terrorists, the I.B. inputs were not genuine.
“The present discharge applications of the Accused No.4 Mr. G.L.Singhal, Accused No.6 Mr. Tarun Barot and Accused No.7 Mr. Anaju Chaudhary is hereby allowed and they are discharged from the offences punishable u/s 120B, r/w 341, 342, 343, 365, 368, 312 and 201 of IPC and sec. 25/(1)(e) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The bail bond stands cancelled and security amounts, if any, deposited by the applicants accused are ordered to be refunded to them. The applicants are directed to give fresh security and personal bond of ₹15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each till the appeal period is over”.
Conclusion:
Evidences are an answer to the all the conspiracy/ tittle-tattle. The evidence played an important role in framing the above decision. Inputs provided by the Intelligence bureau (IB) were pin-pointed and therefore the Police officers were duty bound to act in order to prevent terrorist attack in the State of Gujarat, hence securing the security and integrity of India.
