The most difficult task before CBI in its investigation of Tulsi Prajapati fake encounter case was to find clinching evidence to prove involvement of senior IPS officer Geetha Johri.
The most difficult task before CBI in its investigation of Tulsi Prajapati fake encounter case was to find clinching evidence to prove involvement of senior IPS officer Geetha Johri. If sources in the CBI are to be believed, the statements made by retired police officers GC Raigar and VL Solanki before the agency may have given it the evidence against Johri it was seeking.
The charge sheet filed by the CBI in the Tulsi case has not been made public yet. However, sources said that Raigar and Solanki’s statements had helped investigators get approval from senior CBI officials for naming Johri in the charge sheet. Raigar was additional director general of police, CID (crime), when the Tulsi case was with the state agency and Solanki, then a PI in CID (crime), had investigated the case under Johri’s supervision.
Sources said that CBI had taken a long time to file a charge sheet in the Tulsi case and had sought four extensions, mainly because of the investigation into Johri’s role. The sources further said that unlike IPS officer Rajnish Rai, Johri had buckled under pressure and allegedly tried to derail investigation.
When the CBI was investigating into Johri’s role, it had raided her office in CID (crime) and seized hard discs from a computer which was allegedly used by her. The sources claimed that the CBI could find nothing incriminating on the hard discs and, hence, had not submitted them as evidence along with the charge sheet.
Senior officials of the CBI were initially not convinced that Johri could be named as an accused in the case but they had changed their view when the statements of Raigar and Solanki were presented before them.
A source said that, in the CBI, an officer investigating the case cannot name a person as an accused on his own. The investigating officer has to take approval from senior CBI officers in Delhi before naming someone as an accused in a case or charge sheet. “Such approval is also needed to arrest an accused,” a senior IPS officer said on the condition of anonymity.
Sources said that she is planning to file for anticipatory bail in the next few days.
Further hearing on Sep 15
DNA Correspondent
A magisterial court in Danta on Monday took temporary custody of the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the Tulsi Prajapati fake encounter case. The court posted the matter for further hearing on September 15 when it will decide whether it has the jurisdiction to file a charge sheet in a case investigated by CBI.
“The court accepted the charge sheet but pointed out that the final decision whether to take permanent custody of the charge sheet will be decided on September 15,” said Mitesh Amin, counsel for suspended IPS officer Rajkumar Pandian.
The court adjourned the hearing after counsels for Pandian and OP Mathur (both accused in the case) objected that the agency cannot file a charge sheet in the Danta court (in Banaskantha district) under whose jurisdiction the fake encounter had occurred in 2006. They argued that the charge sheet can only be filed at a special CBI court in Ahmedabad.
Earlier, investigation was done by state CID before it was handed over to the CBI on the orders of SC. “We moved an application before the court that it cannot accept or take custody of the charge sheet as the case has been investigated by the CBI,” said VD Gajjar, counsel for OP Mathur.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}