‘AP govt is suppressing info in Sohrabuddin case’
New Delhi: After Gujarat, the Andhra Pradesh
government on today came under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court
for protecting its police officials who were allegedly present
at the site where Sohrabiddin Sheikh was killed in a fake
A bench of justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai
said that there is a "deliberate attempt" on the part of
Andhra Pradesh not to provide information to the CBI which is
investigating the case.
"There is a deliberate attempt to suppress information,"
the bench observed while pointing out that the register which
records the movement of the police officials was not supplied
to the probe agency.
Andhra Pradesh police officials had said that the
register, recording the duty of its officials who were present
at the site, was missing.
The court's remark came after the former Solicitor
General Gopal Subramanium, assisting the court as amicus
curiae, submitted that the investigating agency has failed to
identify the Andhra Pradesh police officials who were alleged
to be involved in the fake encounter.
On the apex court decision to hand over the case to the
CBI which was earlier probed by the Gujarat police, he said,
"The state had failed to discharge its constitutional duty".
Subramanium contended that the CBI probe in the case is
"It is something very serious. The state has not
performed its duty and the CBI is also faltering in the case,"
he said, while pointing out the failure of the CBI to identify
the Andhra Pradesh police official involved in the fake
The bench after hearing his arguments asked him to point
out the deficiencies in the CBI probe on the next date of
hearing on Wednesday.
Earlier, the apex court had rapped the CBI for making
insinuations that Gujarat's trial courts and its judges were
partial towards Shah in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case,
saying it was "complete nonsense" and "contemptuous".
The CBI's submission in its petition that the accused in
the case have "presence of their kith and kin in the
subordinate judiciary in various capacities as prosecutors,
magistrates as well as judges" was termed as "highly
irresponsible statement" by the court.