Brother of 'fake Gujarat encounter' victim Sadiq Jamal opposes closure of CBI case

Ahmedabad: Shabbir Jamal Mehtar, the brother of Sadiq Jamal, who was killed in an alleged fake encounter, has opposed the CBI’s closure of the case, which also implicated an Intelligence Bureau officer and two Maharashtra police officials, including former "encounter specialist" Pradeep Sharma. The CBI closed the case, stating that the sanction to prosecute them was denied by both the central government and the Maharashtra government.

"The closure report itself clearly states that the deceased, (Sadiq), was neither a terrorist, a fugitive, nor armed. Instead, he was already in illegal custody, falsely shown as being armed, and, by flouting the law, an innocent person was killed in a staged encounter," Mehtar has stated in his seven-page written response against the closure report.

"The deceased’s (Sadiq) family have been living in Bhavnagar for many years. His father was a taxi driver... Neither the local police nor the state police department had any knowledge of any illegal activities on his part. He was never involved in anti-national or extremist activities nor was there any suspicion that he was engaged in religiously motivated wrongdoing," Shabbir has said in his response.

He has alleged that days before his encounter, Sadiq was being subjected to harassment and intimidation by local police in Bhavnagar and to "protect himself he voluntarily approached the IB officials along with his employer to inform them of the facts." He further added that the IB officials handed him to Mumbai police and later created a false source report saying that Sadiq was a terrorist.

Shabbir's arguments are based on CBI finding, which also revealed that Mumbai police handed over Sadiq to a team of Gujarat policemen who later killed him on January 13, 2003 in Ahmedabad while branding him as a "Lashkar-e-Taiba operative" who was out to kill the then chief minister Narendra Modi, and other BJP leaders to avenge 2002 post Godhra riots.

In 2012, the CBI filed a chargesheet against eight Gujarat policemen and kept the case open for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Meanwhile, all eight policemen were discharged due to the lack of sanction to prosecute them. On February 14, 2024, the CBI filed a closure report, while also disclosing new findings.

The report named three more officials - the then Assistant Central Intelligence Officer (ACIO) of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB), Mumbai, Gururaj Savadatti, as well as two former Mumbai police officers, including the controversial "encounter specialist" Pradeep Sharma and Feroze Patel.

The CBI found their alleged involvement in conspiracy, illegal confinement, and kidnapping yet it closed the case as the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the case Savadatti, and the Maharashtra government, in the cases of Sharma and Patel, did not grant sanction to prosecute them under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The section mandates prior sanction for prosecuting government servants, as their actions are presumed to be in the discharge of official duties.

The CBI, according to the closure report, sought sanction from the union government while stating, "...the acts and omissions of Gururaj Savadatti, then ACIO, SIB, Mumbai show his involvement in commission of offences punishable u/s (under section) 120b r/w (read with), 341, 342, 344 and 365 of IPC. Since, his alleged act was purported to be done in discharge of his official duty, CBI sought sanction for prosecution u/s 197 of CrPC against him from competent authority i.e Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, New Delhi. However, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, vide letter dated 23/03/2017, declined to grant sanction for prosecution u/s 197 for prosecution of Gururaj Savadatti, then ACIO, Mumbai. Therefore, he has not been chargesheeted."

Similarly, CBI has stated that the Maharashtra government didn't grant sanction it sought against Sharma and Patel, because of that it didn't file chargesheet against them. On the other hand, Mumbai-based journalist Ketan Tirodkar, who had been arrested in 2012 in this case and was out on bail, was also not chargesheeted for want of "prosecutable evidence", CBI has stated in the report.