Ahmedabad: The Gujarat government today
opposed CBI probe into the 2004 encounter of Ishrat Jahan and three others, in the Gujarat High Court.
Advocate General Kamal Trivedi appearing on behalf of
the state also contended that Magistrate S P Tamang`s report
which had claimed the encounter was fake, was unwarranted
and beyond his jurisdiction.
Trivedi put forth the contentions before the division
bench of Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari which was
hearing a bunch of petitions demanding CBI probe into the
He submitted that there was already a special
investigation team (SIT) constituted by the High Court to
probe the encounter in which Ishrat was gunned down by Gujarat police along with Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani in Ahmedabad on June 15,2004.
Trivedi said that the encounter followed specific
input from the central intelligence stating that the four
people were Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives on a mission to kill
Chief Minister Narendra Modi and carry out attacks on various
parts of India including Gujarat.
It is important what the court thinks about the case
irrespective of what the Centre government does which had
earlier opposed CBI probe, but now has changed its stance, he
Trivedi also opposed Tamang`s report which had stated
that encounter of Ishrat and three others was fake and
executed `mercilessly` by shooting the victims from `close
range` with motive to get promotion and to impress upon the
Chief Minister (Narendra Modi) and get his accolades.
Such a detailed inquiry in the six year old encounter
case by the magistrate was unwarranted for, he said, adding
that the inferences drawn by Tamang were without authority.
Trivedi further contended that by challenging the
Tamang report does not mean the state has lost its
"We are against the principal, method and manner in
which the magistrate had prepared the report," he said.
During the hearing, Justice Jayant Patel questioned
the locus standi of G L Singhal, one of the police officers
named in Tamang`s report, who had sought quashing of the
While questioning locus standi of Singhal, Justice
Patel indicated that if the court decides to uphold Tamang`s
report than it would be followed by an FIR, and even if the
report is disapproved, there could be further inquiry into the
Singhal`s lawyer Nirupam Nanavati in reply submitted
that since the magistrate had made observations against his
client, he was an aggrieved party and had a right to challenge