Justice Revati Mohite-Dere said the CBI had failed to put all evidence on record including the prima facie evidence against those discharged to assess whether the same warranted that they be discharged from the case.
"It is theprimary duty of a prosecuting agency to place all evidence on record before the court. However, in this case, despite the court's repeated queries, the CBI has chosen to argue only on the role of the two officials whose discharge it has challenged," Justice Mohite-Dere said.
The court has now directed the CBI to submit details of all the witnesses' statements recorded under section 164 of the CrPC.
Since February 9 this year, when the hearings in the case began, eachtime that the court has sought documents like the charge sheet, witness statements, or, seized letters related to the case, the CBI has maintained that it did not have the papers and sought time to procure it.
The CBI's conduct had irked the court on previous occasions as well.
The court is hearing two petitions filed by the CBI, and another three filed by Rubabuddin Shaikh, the brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging the discharge of five of the 14 police officers by a special CBI court inthe alleged fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi, and their aide Tulsiram Prajapati.
Of the 38 persons charged by the CBI in the case as accused, 15, including senior IPS officers DG Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandiyan, Dinesh MN and BJP president Amit Shah, were discharged by the special CBI court in Mumbai between August 2016 and September 2017.
While the CBI has challenged the discharge of retired Gujarat IPS officer NK Amin and constable Dalpat Singh Rathod, Rubabuddin has challenged the discharge of Vanzara, Dinesh MN, and Pandian.
Rubabuddin has told the HC that Pandian, along with the then Gujarat ATS chief DG Vanzara and Rajasthan IPS officer Dinesh MN, was part of the conspiracy to abduct and kill Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi.
He also said that Pandian was part of the police team that had abducted the victim from a luxury bus that they were traveling in, but the Gujarat police, which initially probed the case, had failed to conduct an identification parade to get witnesses from the bus to identify the accused police personnel.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
