Ahmedabad: A special CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) court today here dropped the case against the three remaining accused policemen including Inspector General of Police G L Singhal, retired DySP Tarun Barot and Assistant Sub Inspector Anaju Chaudhary in the year 2004 Ishrat Jahan encounter case. With this, all seven accused Gujarat policemen have been dropped from the proceeding without trial.

While granting relief to accused officers, CBI special judge Vipul Raval observed that “Ishrat and three others (killed in the encounter) were prima facie terrorists.”

રાષ્ટહિતમા કરેલા કર્ત​વ્ય માટે ૧૨વર્ષ સહન કર્યુ, જેમા ૩વર્ષ (૨૦૧૨ થી ૨૦૧૫) જેલમા સહન કર્યુ, આજે ન્યાય મળ્યો. મારો ક્રૃષ્ણ મારી સાથે છે. #જય_રણછોડ​ #ભારત_માતાની_જય #વંદે_માતરમ 🇮🇳🙏🏻 pic.twitter.com/XwBqG9Qj9j

— TarunBarotOfficial (@TarunBarotOffi1) March 31, 2021

સત્યમેવ જયતે #Jay_Ranchhod 🇮🇳🙏🏻 pic.twitter.com/iYZscOqSZ1

— TarunBarotOfficial (@TarunBarotOffi1) March 31, 2021

Special judge remarked while dropping proceedings against accused cops that “there is no question of fake encounter on the part of any such police officers. All the police officers were to be more cautious and alert to maintain peace in the public at large. In the past, at number of places in Ahmedabad, there were bomb blasting. Therefore, seriousness and gravity of information cannot be ignored by high rank police officers. They are always dedicated to their duties. Looking to the material found from the Indica Car, it is established that the information was correct, sound and there was substantial force in the information. Therefore, these 4 persons were required to be prevented from all these aforesaid activities. It is pertinent to note that even the complainant has also found this information sound and correct. In all these circumstances, all the high rank police officials of Gujarat State were answerable to public at large and government also. As a matter of fact, as per the provisions of law, all the police officers are considered to be on duty for all 24 hours. Therefore, it is clear that the act which is alleged to have been done by the accused was in discharge of their duties or purported to be in discharge of their duties.”