criminal miscellaneous petition filed by mr. pradeep sharma ias in writ petition (criminal) 93 of...
DESCRIPTION
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by Mr. Pradeep Sharma IAS in Writ Petition (Criminal) 93 of 2011.TRANSCRIPT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRL MP NO. ______ OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 93 of 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRADEEP N. SHARMA …Petitioner/Applicant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS …Respondents
APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner/Applicant has filed the
accompanying writ petition seeking the transfer of the four
FIRs lodged against him, from the Gujarat State Police
Crime Branch to an independent investigative agency, i.e.
the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”). This Hon’ble
Court has been pleased to issue notice and the instant
case is now ripe for disposal.
2. It has been the consistent submission of the Applicant
herein since the last several years, that he has been
victimized and implicated in the said FIRs due to the
personal animosity, malice and mala fide of the State
Government at the behest of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
the State of Gujarat– Shri Narendra Modi- Respondent
No. 3 herein. The reasons for this victimization are
twofold–firstly since the Applicant herein is the younger
brother of Shri Kuldip Sharma IPS (Retd.) who incurred
the wrath of the Respondent no.3 herein due to his refusal
to follow the illegal diktats of Shri Narendra Modi and Shri
Amit Shah (the then Home Minister of the State of
Gujarat) during the tenure of Shri Kuldip Sharma as the
Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) CID-Crime,
State of Gujarat, as clearly enumerated in Paras 8 to 14
of the accompanying writ petition, contents of which are
not reproduced herein to avoid prolixity.
3. Secondly-the Applicant’s knowledge of the intimacy
shared by Shri Narendra Modi with a young lady architect,
aged 27 years, from Bangalore, but originally from Bhuj in
Gujarat, who was introduced to Shri Modi by the Applicant
himself in the year 2004.
4. That the Applicant herein joined the State
Administrative Services in the year 1981 and was
promoted to the IAS cadre in the year 1994. The
Applicant has enjoyed impeccable service record and has
not faced even a Departmental proceeding against him let
alone registration of an FIR till the Respondent No. 3
assumed charge as the Chief Minister of the State of
Gujarat, and an upright officer, who never faced even a
departmental proceeding in his entire career from 1981 to
2010, was suddenly implicated in 6 (six) FIRs from 2010
to 2012.
5. That the Applicant herein was the District Magistrate of
Kutch (with Bhuj City as the District HQ) during the period
of 2003-2006. During this tenure, he commissioned a
series of projects towards the beautification of Bhuj City
which was devastated by an earthquake in the year 2001.
One of the beautification projects was development of a
Hill Garden in the year 2005 for which the said female
architect was hired as the landscape architect. The said
female architect was introduced to Shri Narendra Modi by
the Applicant during the inaugural function of the said Hill
Garden by Shri Modi in the year 2004.
6. The Applicant herein verily believes that the
Respondent no. 3 and the said female architect remained
in touch with each other for next several years. There was
also wide spread rumours regarding the Video Compact
Disc (VCD) featuring the said female architect and a man
in compromising position as stated in Paras 15-16 of the
accompanying writ petition. The Applicant herein has no
concern with this VCD. However, the Applicant herein
believes that the Respondent No. 3 harbored a totally
misconceived apprehension that the Applicant herein is
recipient of the information regarding this VCD, the
contents of which, if disclosed in public, would be
detrimental to the carefully constructed and publicized
image of the Respondent No. 3 and consequently,
damage the electoral prospects of the Respondent No. 3.
It for this reason, that a number of false and frivolous
cases against the Applicant herein were registered with a
view to implicate him and “punish him”.
7. That vide the instant application, the Applicant most
respectfully seeks the leave of this Hon’ble Court, to bring
some recent developments to the kind attention of this
Hon’ble Court. These developments/facts lend credence
to the submissions made by the Applicant in the instant
writ petition and are thus germane for the adjudication of
the instant matter.
8. That, earlier this month, two websites namely-
“Cobrapost” and “Gulail” have released tapes of the
telephonic conversation between Shri Amit Shah, the then
Minister of State, Home, Government of Gujarat at that
time and Shri G.L Singhal IPS, who was serving as the
Superintendent of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS),
Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The said conversations are
during the period from August-September 2009 when Shri
GL Singhal, IPS was reporting to Shri Amit Shah. The
transcripts of the taped conversations reveal that the said
lady architect and the Applicant herein were placed under
an all-pervasive and intrusive surveillance at the behest of
a person referred to as “Saheb” by Shri Amit Shah. The
political party, to which the Respondent No. 3 belongs,
has openly stated in numerous press conferences in the
last few days that the surveillance was done at the behest
of the Respondent no. 3, Shri Narendra Modi. Therefore,
there is no iota of doubt that the person referred to as
“Saheb” by Shri Amit Shah in the tapes/transcripts refer to
the Respondent No. 3 herein- Shri Narendra Modi. It is
pertinent to note that Shri Amit Shah was merely the
Minister of State, for the Home Department. The Cabinet
post of the Home Department by Shri Narendra Modi,
himself and therefore was directly in control of the Police
Department.
9. It is most respectful submission of the Applicant herein
that the taped conversations reveal severe and material
violations of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, and an
absolute disregard to the guidelines laid down by this
Hon’ble Court, in its judgment dated 18.12.1996 in the
case of ‘PUCL vs. Union of India & Ors’ reported in (1997)
1 SCC 301.
10. It is further submitted that under Section 5(2), Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, phone tapping is allowed only in the
“public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”.
However, at times when an investigative agency/authority
needs to record phone conversations of the person who is
under suspicion, the said authority is required seek
permission from the Home Ministry before going ahead
with such an act, explaining thereto the specific reasons
for which such surveillance is required to be conducted.
Despite the guidelines under the Telegraph Act and the
rules framed thereunder being in place which prescribes
the procedure and the manner in which surveillance can
be conducted on an individual without violation of his
Right to Privacy, the surveillance as bought on record by
the annexed transcripts/tapes on the Applicant herein and
the said female architect were in utter disregard and
violation of the same. True copies of Government of
Gujarat’s Resolution dated 27th March 1997 and Ministry
of Communications Notification dated 16.02.1999 laying
down the rules in this regard are annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE- .These transcripts reveal a strong bias
and prejudice of the State of Gujarat against the Applicant
herein and the State’s intent to somehow implicate the
Applicant herein in criminal offences. The Applicant herein
did not have a copy of these transcripts and was unaware
of the same at the time of filing of the instant Writ Petition.
However, these transcripts now present an ex post facto
confirmation of the apprehension of the Applicant herein
and as averred in the instant petition, that one of the
reasons for victimizing him was the Applicant’s knowledge
of the relationship of the Respondent No. 3 with the said
female architect.
11. As indicated on the above-mentioned websites, there
are approximately 267 (two hundred and sixty seven)
taped conversations which were also produced by Shri
GL Singhal on 09.06.2013 before the CBI during the
investigation of RC- BS/1/S/2011/0005/CBI SCB Mumbai-
which case is commonly referred to as the Ishrat Jahan
Fake Encounter Case. The copy of the seizure
panchnama (which is part of the chargesheet filed in the
case by the CBI before the competent court in
Ahmedabad), digital audio files of all the 267 taped
conversations, and copy of Shri GL Singhal’s statement
under section 161 CrPC before the CBI are all obtained
from the above said two websites. As these documents
are on the record of the CBI, there is no doubt harbored
by the Applicant with regards to their authenticity. The
True copy of the seizure panchnama dated 09.06.2013 is
annexed hereto as Annexure – A. The true copy of the
statement of Shri GL Singhal dated 11.04.2013 under
Section 161, CrPC before the CBI in the Ishrat Jahan’s
Case is annexed hereto as Annexure – B. The true
translated copy (from Gujarati to English) of the
transcripts of the 267 audio files is annexed hereto as
Annexure – C.
12. It is most respectfully submitted, that pursuant to the
release of the annexed transcripts/tapes, as learnt from
various newspaper reports, the explanation given for such
extensive surveillance is that it was made on the oral
request of the father of the said female architect.
However, this explanation seems absolutely incredulous
and unworthy of any belief, in light of the contents of the
conversations that Shri Amit Shah had with Shri GL
Singhal, IPS which clearly reveal that the surveillance was
extremely intrusive and hostile and not as innocuous and
benign as sought to be made. That the explanation of the
so called request from the father of the female architect is
a mere after thought and the purported ‘no objection’ by
the father of the said female architect does not absolve
Shri Narendra Modi, Shri Amit and others guilty persons
from committing violations of the applicable laws.
13. It is pertinent to note that at the time when the
surveillance was being conducted, the said female
architect, was a mature lady of 32 years and not someone
of tender age. The said architect was an independent
professional and therefore, it is highly inconceivable to
state that her father approached the Respondent No. 3
herein, for such uncalled for and intrusive surveillance.
The State of Gujarat and the Respondent No.3 be put to
strict proof to provide credible and cogent evidence that
such a request was indeed made by the father of the girl
and that such surveillance was in due compliance of the
applicable laws.
14. That the Applicant herein seeks to draw the kind
attention of this Hon'ble Court to the references made by
Shri Amit Shah to Applicant herein during the course of
his conversation with Shri G.S. Singhal. The Parts of the
said transcripts which directly bears mention of the
Petitioner herein are excerpted herein below:
“Amit Shah: That man had gone from Bhavnagar to Mumbai and is back in Ahmedabad. In connection with the matter we are watching him also. So today deploy 8 to 10 men, he stays at Kuldip’s (Brother’s) House. There he has called the Bhavnagar Corporation vehicle, this and the *******[name of the girl] matter keep a watch the whole night, call for your man as he will stay here for a day or two and try to be active. I have their conversation and know the nature of their relationship. Get more men or some of your confidants.
G.S. Singhal: Sir I have called two three men from the crime department
Amit Shah: 2-3 to watch the other side call for men from the IB and some IB men to intercept calls in the night should be posted inside.
Amit Shah: Amit this side, could you talk?G.S. Singhal: Sir I did and according to him
surveillance cannot be done at shahibaug by his men.
Amit Shah: No no it can be done from a distance, what is happening, where his car is parked!
G.S. Singhal: Sir I will ask him (AKS) to talk to you
Amit Shah: or you put one of your own man to watch.
G.S. Singhal: I just checked his mobile location and it shows in Bhavnagar.
Amit Shah: He must have left the instrument there, he was in Mumbai. You check it out, he must have left the phone at home. He has an additional number, I will ask AK Sharma to give it to you.
G.S. Singhal: I have taken it from him three now and two are showing location in Bhavnagar. Have to check the third one.
Amit Shah: Check the third also. And where is the lady?
G.S. Singhal: She is sitting at Navrangpura near havmor.
Amit Shah: With her fiancé?G.S. Singhal: Yes sirAmit Shah: I want him (Pradeep Sharma) in
jail for as many days as Vanjara has been jailed for. You be courageous and strong. No matter how big the person, put him in jail.
G.S. Singhal: right sir”
[Emphasis supplied]
15. It is most respectfully clarified that the contents of the
above conversations would reveal the hostile attitude and
malicious attitude of the State Government the Applicant
herein who’s every movement was being followed without
any cogent reasons or any illegal act committed thereto.
In one of the conversations, Shri Amit Shah makes
reference to one Shri Vanzara, who is none other than
Shri D.G. Vanzara, IPS, currently in jail for his role in
Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. It is pertinent to
bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that Shri D.G.
Vanzara was arrested along with certain other police
officers and Shri Amit Shah as a result of inquiries
pursued vigorously by the brother of the Applicant herein-
Shri Kuldip Sharma, when he was in-charge of the State
CID Crime. This encounter was stage managed by certain
Police Officers of the State of Gujarat at the behest of the
Respondent no. 3 and Shri Amit Shah, in order to further
the public image and electoral prospects of the
Respondent No. 3. Shri D.G. Vanzara, who was also
subsequently arrested by the CBI for the fake encounter
of Tulsi Prajapati, Ishrat Jahan and Sadiq Jamal, was
considered at that point of time as someone who was very
close to the Respondent No. 3 and Shri Amit shah and
therefore, they wanted to ensure that the Applicant herein
spends as much time behind the bars as has been done
by Shri D.G. Vanzara, their close aide.
16. It is most respectfully submitted that, when these
interceptions were being carried out there was only one
case namely- M Case, CR No. 1 of 2008, based on a
private complaint. This Complaint was general in nature,
filed in the Court of JMFC, Bhuj by a person not remotely
affected or connected with the subject matter of the
complaint. The court had passed an order entrusting
investigation to State CID Crime under section 156(3)
CrPC. However, the CID Crime had filed a revision
application in the Sessions Court against the said order
on the ground that the judicial court did not possess the
powers under the law to direct investigation by State CID
Crime, and therefore was not investigating it. Arbitrarily
thereafter, the CID Crime had withdrawn in June 2009 the
revision application for enabling it to ‘investigate’ the case.
It is therefore submitted, that this arbitrary reversal in the
State attitude arose out of the personal reasons of the
Respondent No. 3 herein-the Chief Minister with regards
to the matter of the said female architect. It is also
notable that the M Case no. 1 of 2008 appears nowhere
in the conversations between Shri Amit Shah and Shri GL
Singhal as being the reason for the surveillance, if at all.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the State IB, the
Crime Branch of Ahmedabad City Police, and the ATS
were all involved in this illegal exercise of telephone
interceptions and surveillance who had no role to play in
the investigation of M Case No. 1/2008.
17. That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
the sequence of events it becomes clear that all the
actions taken against the Applicant herein were biased
and prejudicial. The whole machinery including the higher
bureaucracy and the Police Administration of the State
Govt. has been misused to create false cases against the
Applicant. The Charge sheets filed in various cases are
outcome of bias and prejudicial investigations. The
Applicant herein has strong reasons to believe that the
lodging of FIRs and thereafter the Investigations
conducted by the State Police are with a view to harass
the Applicant herein and is an act of vendetta. It is the
case of the Applicant that the Revenue Proceedings are
being converted into vexatious criminal cases. Therefore
it would be in the interest of justice if all the FIRs are
being investigated by an Independent Agency like CBI
beyond the control of the Respondent No. 3 herein.
Unless the relief as prayed for in the instant petition is not
granted, there would be a denial of the right of free and
fair trial by the State of Gujarat which is the Applicant’s
constitutionally guaranteed right.
18. That the instant application on behalf of the Petitioner
is bona fide and an order allowing the present application
shall meet the ends of the justice. The balance of
convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and if the
prayers as sought for in this application and the
accompanying petition are not granted then the Petitioner
shall suffer grave and sever prejudice. The Applicant has
not preferred any application in this regard.
PRAYER:
IN THE PREMISES STATED HEREINABOVE, IT IS
THEREFORE, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED, THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:
a) Allow the instant application;
b) Take on record the documents and transcripts
annexed with the instant application and direct the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a
case and conduct a thorough inquiry/investigation
into the violation of the Telegraph Act 1885 and
other applicable laws by Shri Narendra Modi, Shri
Amit Shah and any other such persons;
c) Allow the accompanying instant writ petition and ;
d) Pass any other and further order as may deem fit
and proper to this Hon’ble Court.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER
AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVEN PRAY
Drawn and Filed by:
SUNIL FERNANDESAdvocate for Petitioner
Drawn on:
Filed on: