Court Rejects CBI Plea For Shah¡¯s Custody

Ahmedabad: A special CBI court on Wednesday rejected a plea by the central investigating agency seeking custody of former Gujarat home minister Amit Shah to further probe his role in the Soharabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. Rejecting the plea, Special Judge AY Dave pointed out to the CBI that Shah was questioned only for 3 ? hours during the three days granted by the court to grill him.

The court observed that since the CBI had questioned him for such a short period of time even when he was available, there is no need for a police remand of Amit Shah. The agency was seeking a five -day custody of Shah as they alleged that the politician did not co-operate fully during the questioning.

Shah has been in judicial custody since July 25 when he surrendered. He is currently lodged in Sabarmati jail following him being named in the 30,000 page chargesheet as a co-conspirator of the murder, abduction and conspiracy in the staged shootout case.

Clearly, the special court's ruling is a major blow to the CBI. The court, while rejecting the plea today, also posted the hearing on Amit Shah's bail petition on August 11.

Coming out of the courtroom, an elated Nirupam Nanavati, counsel for Amit Shah said, "The special court has rejected the CBI plea seeking custody of former Gujarat Home Minister."

The ruling surely comes as a relief to Gujarat's beleaguered politician, who is also believed to be a close aide of state Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

The fake encounter case has garnered much attention since it involves many high-profile names including senior Supreme Court counsel Ram Jethmalani, who represents Amit Shah.

The CBI's counsel and senior Supreme Court lawyer KTS Tulsi has recently filed an Action Taken Report in apex court on the central agency's probe in the case so far.

The report of CBI, in which, according to sources, it had expressed doubts over the conduct of free and fair trial in Gujarat, had sparked an angry reaction from Modi who came down heavily on the Centre, saying that it was an “insult” to the state’s judicial system.