In the same petition, she also prayed for companypensation for the killing of her son in a fake encounter thereby causing gross violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
They are Tulsiram Prajapati, as mentioned in the petition and in the prayer was the sharp shooter of Sohrabuddin.
13, Ahmedabad, along with companyaccused Md. Azam and around 50 police companymandos were accompanied for the escort party, whereas on 25.11.2006, Tulsiram Prajapati was brought alone on police escort by Rajasthan Police from Udaipur Jail when less than five police men accompanied him.
While running, they fired at the police party in which one bullet hit at the left shoulder of Shri A.A. Pandya, SI.
2 and other police officials were number heard by the said Bench before ordering fresh investigation by the CBI.
It is alleged that in self defence Shri A.A. Pandya fired two rounds from his service revolver and Mr. Narayansinh Fatehsinh Chauhan and Mr. Yuddharamsinh Nathusinh Rajput, Rajasthan police companystables also fired from their weapons.
Countering the stand of the petitioner, CBI and Union of India, the State and other respondents projected the case relating to Navrangpura which took place on 08.12.2004.
Stand of the State of Gujarat respondent No.1 Shri I.M. Desai, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CID Crime , Gujarat State filed an affidavit wherein it was stated that the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is number maintainable as the case registered in respect of death of the petitioners son in police firing on 28.12.2006 was under investigation.
If Tulsiram Prajapatis fake encounter case is number transferred to the CBI for investigation, it may lead to issue estoppel or res judicata against prosecution.
It was further pointed out that one Kalimuddin Naimuddin another numberorious criminal wanted in many serious cases was residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh along with his sister Saleema Begum.
Case of the Writ Petitioner According to the petitioner, she is 55 years old illiterate widow.
6 to 19, who are the officials of Gujarat and Rajasthan Police, somewhere on the road going from Ambalimal to Sarhad Chhapri, has filed the above writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction directing the Central Bureau of Investigation in short the CBI to register a First Information Report in short FIR and investigate into the fake encounter killing of her son and submit its report to this Court.
6 of 2007 revealed that the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati on 28.12.2006 was done in order to eliminate him as he was the key witness in the criminal companyspiracy of the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi by the powerful and the influential accused persons.
While in custody, he and two of his jail mates addressed a letter dated 11.05.2006 to the Collector, Udaipur informing him about the attack carried out on them in the jail premises and they were badly injured.
Karan Singh Bhati, learned companynsel for respondent Nos.
The Andhra Pradesh police officers who sat in these two vehicles have number been identified despite investigation both by the Gujarat Police as well as later by the CBI.
The aforesaid facts create a strong suspicion on the companyduct of respondent Nos.
The scene of offence was the office premises of a firm called Popular Builders owned by two Patel brothers Raman Patel and Dashrath Patel.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the deceased being a key eye witness to the murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi, the team of Mr. D.G. Vanzara and others planned to do away with him to avoid his interrogation by Ms. Geeta Johri, Inspector General of Police.
The investigation further revealed that the deceased knew that his death was imminent at the hands of Gujarat Police in companynivance with the Rajasthan Police as he was the prime witness to the said case.
He was company accused of Sohrabuddin in Hamid Lalas case and was taken into custody only on 29.11.2005.
Two tickets for the bus journey were purchased by one Sri Hari.
He did number even express a suspicion about any one who planned the attack on him.
This incident took place on 31.12.2004.
Her younger son had been done away by respondent Nos.
Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court praying for direction to CBI to register an FIR and investigate the case.
In the said letter, he did number allege or even suspect that this dangerous assault in jail had anything to do with the Sohrabuddin Kausarbi fake encounter case or that he was being eliminated because he was a witness of the murder of either Sohrabuddin or his wife.
After his arrest, he was lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur.
As a result of fresh discovery made during the companyrse of investigation, it was Patel Brothers who were ultimately charge sheeted for filing a false case.
An employee of the firm, who was sitting on the ground floor, where the incident took place, lodged an FIR with the Navrangpura Police Station on 08.12.2004 in the city of Ahmedabad.
In other words, he had been absconding for nearly a year before he was arrested.
However, even after a lapse of 3 years, numberaction was taken against any of the accused.
The petitioner had also strong suspicion on the companyduct of respondent Nos.
They were acting as informers of the Andhra Pradesh Police and they were under their protection.
She also alleged that the respondents accused officers enjoy powerful position in their respective State Police and are trying to obstruct further inquiry into the fake encounter killing of her son, who was a material witness in the case of fake encounter of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi.
It was Kalimuddin, who seems to have approached by somebody who invited Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi from their hide out in Madhya Pradesh to Hyderabad.
The FIR did number name any one of the assailant, however, it was then discovered that the FIR was substantially a false one and the suspects were known and yet had number been named.
It was further highlighted that on or about 22.11.2005, Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi left by a luxury bus for Sangli in Maharashtra.
Stand of the other respondents As far as the officials of the Gujarat State Police are companycerned, they reiterated the stand taken by the State.
Saleema Begum was residing in Government Railway Quarters.
The murder of Tulsiram Prajapati took place on 28.12.2006, case was registered on 28.12.2006 and Gujarat CID companymenced investigation on 22.03.2007.
12, 13 and 14 and Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned ASG for the Union of India.
In the eventual charge sheet filed by the Gujarat Police on 16.07.2007 against 13 persons it was reported that the encounter was a fake one.
The second case is Hamid Lala murder case in which one Hamid Lala, a protector of marble dealers of Rajasthan against criminal extortion by Sohrabuddin gang was shot dead at a place within the jurisdiction of Ambaji Police Station, Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan.
Stand of the CBI respondent No.21 The investigation companyducted in R.C. No.
6 19 and has every reason to believe that her son had been killed by them in a fake encounter.
Later, it came to the knowledge of the investigating authorities that he had been hiding in a village of Madhya Pradesh.
The bus was pursued by police vehicle, two of them were in Tata Sumo vehicles belonging to the Andhra Pradesh Police.
Sohrabuddin was done to death in an encounter with the police in the early morning of 26.11.2005.
On seeing that, the deceased took out a weapon kept in the nylon belt on his waist and fired which hit the left side of the mudguard of the police jeep and ran away in the darkness.
They were driven by two drivers in the employment of police being ordinary policemen.
The investigation also revealed that Tulsiram Prajapati was brought to Ahmedabad on 28.11.2006 and 12.12.2006 in companynection with the case No.
In the Hamid Lala murder case, Sohrabuddins companyaccused were Tulsiram Prajapati, Sylvester and one Azamkhan.
In the subsequent affidavit dated 19.08.2010, Dashrathbhai R. Patel, Under Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Home Department has stated that the State CID Crime has filed a charge sheet which is the subject matter of present writ petition.
This happened in the middle of November, 2005.
He named seven persons who had actually participated in the attack.
The third person allegedly present at the time of abduction of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi was Kalimuddin and number Tulsiram Prajapati.
After the orders of this Court for the investigation by this agency, it emerged that police officials of ATS, Ahmedabad were involved in the abduction and killing of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi.
In the light of the above pleadings, we heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned companynsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel for the State of Gujarat respondent No.1 , Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned senior companynsel for Amit Shah respondent No.2 , Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior companynsel for the CBI, Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned companynsel for respondent No.8, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.6, Gp.
Some unknown persons entered into the premises and they did number kill anyone but they fired shots which damaged the companyputer installed in the office.
As directed by this Court, only on the investigation of Tulsiram Prajapatis case, the larger companyspiracy would be established and the mandate and tasks assigned by this Court to the CBI would be accomplished both in letter and spirit towards the goal of a fair trial, upholding the rule of law.
6 to 19 and the petitioner has every reason to believe that her son Tulsiram Prajapati has been killed by them in a fake encounter.
1124 of 2004 in JM Court No.
The same view has been expressed by Ms. Geeta Johri, IGP under whose direct supervision the case relating to Sohrabuddin was investigated.
Thereafter, he was taken to Ambaji Cottage Hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor on duty.
Sathasivam, J. Narmada Bai the petitioner herein, mother of Tulsiram Prajapati the deceased, who, according to her, was killed on 27/28.12.2006 in a fake encounter by respondent Nos.
It is a fact that Sohrabuddin after companymitting Hamid Lalas murder absconded and was number available to the Rajasthan Police.
It is also the apprehension of the petitioner that since the respondents accused police officers enjoy powerful position in their respective States and they are trying to obstruct further inquiry in the matter, prayed for entrusting the investigation to a specialized independent agency like the CBI.
