Ishrat case: Second charge sheet leaves a lot unanswered

Why did the CBI not name former joint director of subsidiary intelligence bureau (IB), Rajinder Kumar as accused in the July 2013 charge sheet when it had all call data records and other evidences in Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case? This and many other such questions come to the mind after the supplementary charge sheet has been filed. The central  probe body has clearly mentioned that it will obtain sanction of prosecution of the accused IB official from competent authority under the Arms Act. However, it implies that it needs the district magistrate’s nod under section 39 of Arms Act and not from ministry of home affairs to question Kumar.

Section 39 under the Arms Act mandates sanction of the district magistrate necessary in certain cases. “No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the district magistrate,” the law reads.

Meanwhile, controversy surrounding supplementary charge sheet will not die down soon. While the CBI filed the supplementary charge sheet last week naming Kumar as conspirator and murderer in the case, his counsel is making rounds in the power corridors questioning the motives behind the charge sheet. On the other hand, the charge sheet is still with judge HS Khutwad, who is verifying it and hence not allowing the accused or the prosecution access it. Other questions that comes to mind is why, despite all evidences like call data records (CDR) in possession of the CBI, IB official Rajinder Kumar was not named as an accused in the first charge sheet filed in the case in July 2013?  Detailed look at the gist of the supplementary charge sheet and the original reveals that the CBI had all necessary evidences to name him as an accused in the first charge sheet itself. The supplementary charge sheet nails him only on basis of the CDR that was also mentioned in the first charge sheet.

Other corroborative evidences that talk about Kumar’s role in getting arms and weapons that were handed over to GL Singhal (one of the accused) and then to Tarun Barot was also narrated, at length, in the first charge sheet itself.

That takes us to the next question whether CBI was waiting to get permission to prosecute Kumar. Submissions before the court in supplementary charge sheet suggest that that is not the case. CBI maintains that in case of Rajinder Kumar, it does not need such permission under the Criminal Procedure Code. In the gist of the charge sheet, the probe body talks about obtaining permission from competent authority (read district magistrate) in the Arms Act only. “The sanction would be obtained from competent authority under the prosecution of Section 39 of Arms Act on receipt of the same, it would be submitted to the court,” charge sheet reads.