Bombay High Court Rejects Plea Against Amit Shah’s Discharge In Sohrabuddin Encounter Case; Says Filed At Instance Of “Political Adversary”

The Court noted that the applicant had surfaced nearly two decades after registration of the crime and had suppressed earlier judicial proceedings upholding the discharge order.

The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the brothers of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, challenging the acquittal of several accused persons in the alleged fake encounter cases concerning Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati.

During the pendency of the appeals, an interim application was moved by a businessman seeking to challenge the discharge of Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who had earlier been discharged by the Special Court in 2014.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed: “The applicant does not state how he gathered information about the judgment in these cases having been reserved. The applicant is not a witness in Crime No.5 of 2005, which was re-registered by the CBI. He does not indicate how he is concerned with the pending Criminal Acquittal Appeals and why he has surfaced about two decades after Crime No.5 of 2005 was registered. We have, therefore, no hesitation to observe that Interim Application No.1172 of 2026 has been filed with an oblique motive and at the instance of some political adversary.”

The Bench further observed that the applicant had suppressed material orders passed earlier by the Special Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court concerning the discharge proceedings initiated by Amit Shah.

Advocate Gautam Tiwari appeared along with a team of advocates. Additional Solicitor General Anil C. Singh & Senior Advocate Amit Desai appeared for the respondents.

Background

The criminal appeals arose from the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court in December 2018 in the alleged fake encounter cases involving Sohrabuddin Shaikh, his wife Kausar Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati.

According to the prosecution's case, Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Kausar Bi were allegedly abducted from a bus travelling from Hyderabad towards Sangli in November 2005 and were later killed in what the prosecution described as a fake encounter. Tulsiram Prajapati was also later killed in another alleged fake encounter in December 2006.

The CBI had conducted an investigation pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court after dissatisfaction was expressed regarding the Gujarat CID investigation.

The Special Court eventually acquitted the accused persons after recording that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged conspiracy or the claimed politician-police nexus behind the encounters.

During the pendency of the acquittal appeals before the High Court, an interim application was filed by one Maniar Kalpesh Kumar seeking to challenge the discharge granted to Amit Shah by the Special Court through an order dated 30 December 2014.

The CBI opposed the application and placed on record copies of the discharge order, subsequent orders passed by the High Court and proceedings before the Supreme Court, including dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in 2016.

Court’s Observation

The High Court observed that the applicant seeking to reopen the discharge issue had not disclosed earlier proceedings concerning Amit Shah’s discharge despite those orders having attained finality.

The Bench noted that the applicant was not a witness in the original crime and had failed to explain how he became aware of the reserved judgment in the appeals or why he sought intervention almost two decades after registration of the case.

The Court specifically recorded that the applicant, a businessman residing in Mumbai, had not demonstrated any direct connection with the criminal proceedings. Finding suppression of material judicial orders, the Bench held that the application lacked bona fides and appeared politically motivated.

On the merits of the acquittal appeals, the Court extensively examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses, many of whom had turned hostile during the trial.

The Bench noted that the prosecution had examined 210 witnesses, but as many as 92 witnesses had turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's case, alleging fake encounters and a wider conspiracy involving police officers and politicians.

The Court also referred to the trial court’s findings that there was “no iota of evidence” establishing any politician-police nexus behind the alleged encounters.

The Bench observed that several material witnesses had either retracted earlier statements or denied prosecution suggestions during cross-examination.

The Court concluded: “The trial Court applied the correct and settled legal principles in law. Its conclusions are not contrary to the evidence and documents on record. This also cannot be held that the judgment of the trial Court is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts. The findings recorded by the trial Court are not perverse. The judgment of acquittal by the trial Court on 21st December 2018 is rendered on consideration of the relevant materials on record, keeping in mind the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal appeals challenging the acquittal of the accused persons in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case.

The Court also rejected the interim application seeking to challenge the discharge of Amit Shah, holding that it had been filed with an oblique motive and at the instance of a political adversary.

Cause Title: Rubabuddin Shaikh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. With Connected Matter (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:21958-DB)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates Gautam Tiwari, Tasneem Khatau, Suraj Jagtap, Nidhi Mishra, Vaishnavi Dubey, & Bhavesh Thakur

Respondents: Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Advocates Kuldeep Patil, Aditya Thakkar, Chaitanya Chavan and others; Senior Advocate Amit Desai with Advocates Madhusudan Pareek, Gopal Shenoy, & Others

Click here to read/download Judgment