English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Amit Shah was a key conspirator in Prajapati killing, chief investigating officer tells court

Published

8 years ago

on

Amit Shah was a key conspirator in Prajapati killing, chief investigating officer tells court

Present BJP president Amit Shah and IPS officers Dinesh MN, Rajkumar Pandiyan and DG Vanzara were the principal conspirators in the alleged fake encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati in Gujarat in 2006, the chief investigating officer of the case Sandeep Tamgadge told a special court on Wednesday, Nov 21.

Prajapati, the sole witness in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged fake encounter case of November 2005, was in police custody. He was shot dead in an alleged fake encounter in December 2006. The police claimed, he tried to escape while being taken back to Udaipur jail after a court hearing in Ahmedabad.

Senior IPS officer Sandeep Tamgadge, who investigated and supervised the case from April 2012, had filed a supplementary chargesheet in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh case and the main chargesheet in Prajapati case.

The CBI’s claim is that Shaikh and Prajapati ran an extortion racket in connivance with the police and politicians. When Shaikh decided to go against his alleged masters, a conspiracy to eliminate him was hatched on November 23, 2005.

Tamgadge said that there was a “politician-criminal” nexus and that and Prajapati, his associate Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Sohrabuddin’s wife Kausar Bi were killed as the behest of this nexus, reported The Wire. He named Amit Shah and Rajasthan Home Minister Gulabchand Kataria as the politicians who had used criminals – Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Tulsiram and Azam Khan – to fire at the office of Ahmedabad-based Popular Builders in 2004.

Shah, Kataria, Dinesh MN, Pandiyan and Vanzara – who were all named as accused in the case – were discharged by the trial court between 2014 and 2017 for lack of evidence. Currently, those facing trial include 21 lower-rung police officers and the owner of a farmhouse where Sheikh and his wife Kausarbi were allegedly confined after being kidnapped from a bus on November 23, 2005.

Tamgadge told the court that he had collected the call detail records of Shah, Vanzara, former Gujarat IPS officer Vipul Agrawal, former Andhra Pradesh police officer Srinivasa Rao and Police Sub-Inspector (Gujarat) Ashish Pandya, The Hindu reported. These call records prove a larger conspiracy, he claimed.

Tamgadge said he had recorded statements of Shah, Kataria and others, but their statements were not filed in the chargesheet. Defence lawyer Abdul Wahab Khan filed a petition seeking to bring the statements recorded by the CBI. The plea will be heard on Thursday.

On Monday, the former chief investigating officer Amitabh Thakur of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged fake encounter case said that Shah and four senior police officers had benefitted politically and monetarily from the case. Thakur, however, said he had no material evidence to “show the persons who were political beneficiaries”.

Tamgadge’s statement comes at a time when one witness after another in the case has been turning hostile. Although his predecessor Amitabh Thakur, did not turn hostile, he failed to reiterate the evidence from his investigation when he took the witness stand, The Wire report said. On November 19, Thakur told the court that the CBI did not have evidence to prove that Shah and senior IPS officers received “monetary and political benefits” from these alleged fake encounters. In addition, Thakur even claimed that the CBI did not have any motive to show for the 22 people presently facing trial.

As pointed out above, Shah, Kataria and several top IPS officers including Vanzara, Pandiyan and Dinesh have already been discharged from the case and only 22 men – 21 low-rung policemen and the owner of the guest house where Kausar Bi was allegedly kept before she was killed – are currently facing trial, though 35 people had been accused of the crime at the start.

While Shah was first named as an accused in Thakur’s investigation, it was Tamgadge who questioned and eventually arrested him. Shah, however, was discharged from the case by a special CBI judge, MB Gosavi, on December 30, 2014. Curiously, the CBI did not appeal against his discharge.

About Sandeep Tamgadge:

Tamgadge, a police officer from the Nagaland cadre, was the 210th witness in the case. At present, he is posted in Kohima as deputy inspector general of police.

Tamgadge also supervised the investigation into the killing of Ishrat Jahan. Under his supervision, the agency had filed two chargesheets in this case arraigning a slew of senior Gujarat police officers who were considered close to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and home minister Shah.

In 2014, just a few weeks before Modi was sworn in as the prime minister, Tamgadge was removed as supervising officer from several encounter cases in Gujarat. He was eventually repatriated to his home cadre, Nagaland.

In 2015, his security cover was withdrawn and an attempt made by the CBI to prosecute him in two cases that critics said were trumped-up – one of dereliction of duty and another of falsely implicating the subject of an anti-corruption investigation.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

20 mins ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

7 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

20 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com