Ishrat case: Investigators differ before high court

Satish Verma Complains About Delhi Officer’s Attitude
Ahmedabad: The special investigation team (SIT) probing the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, split into two on the issue of appointment of an amicus curiae. The differences, which threaten to derail the probe, surfaced before the Gujarat

high court when IPS officer Satish Verma, one of the investigators, said he objected to SIT chief Karnail Singh filing an application demanding an amicus curiae for the case. The third member of the SIT Mohan Jha, a Gujarat IPS officer, supported Singh, who is a joint commissioner from Delhi.

Verma filed an affidavit before the court of Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Abhilasha Kumari, which was hearing Singh’s plea. Verma claimed that Singh had gone to court in his personal capacity without discussing or taking him into confidence, and the application had no consensus. He pointed out that “appointment of a lawyer is the state government’s responsibility and amicus curiae is neutral, who cannot advise the SIT. He requested the court not to pass any order without hearing him.

When the court asked if there was “groupism” in the SIT, Verma said there was a difference of opinion.

On the other hand, Jha told the court that Singh had informally discussed the issue of legal assistance at a guest house in Mehsana, and he had supported it.

When Verma complained about Singh’s attitude, the court reminded him that a policeman Moti Desai, who was part of the crime branch team that killed the ‘terrorists’, had complained against him.

Verma defended himself saying Desai’s complaint was baseless.

The crime branch headed by suspended DIG D G Vanzara killed Ishrat Jahan, Javed Shaikh, Zeeshan Johar and Amjad Ali Rana on June 15, 2004, saying they were from the Lashkar-e-Taiba and had come to kill chief minister Narendra Modi.

Verma’s affidavit said, “Singh’s attitude towards the investigation and such difference of opinions could hamper the investigation, and the purpose of creation of SIT to unearth the truth might be lost.”

The bench said that it would have to work out a model for SIT to see that “sanctity and spirit of its order is not paralysed due to difference of opinions amongst its members”.

The court asked Singh to be present in the court on January 28 along with other members of the SIT, when further hearing on the issue has been kept.