Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal of Police Personnel in Sohrabuddin Encounter Case
Sohrabuddin encounter case verdict: The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the acquittal of 22 persons, including 21 police personnel, in the alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati and the alleged murder of Shaikh’s wife, Kausar Bi, in 2005-06. The special court in December 2018 had acquitted all 22 persons , including 21 police personnel from Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, in the case. In April 2019, Sohrabuddin’s two brothers filed appeals seeking reversal of acquittals, which the HC rejected after seven years. Here’s what to know about the case, which has long been a key reference in India’s encounter politics and how it travelled over 10 years. The prosecution’s case Initially, Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and state CID-Crime probed the case until the Supreme Court transferred it to CBI in 2010, subsequently ordering the trial be shifted trial to a special court in Mumbai . The trial court’s 2018 verdict had noted that Sohrabuddin was a “dreaded criminal” having offences of murder, extortion and abduction registered against him in Gujarat and Rajasthan. The central agency claimed the three deceased persons were abducted from a luxury bus while they were travelling from Hyderabad to Sangli in Maharashtra on November 23, 2005. It added that Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi were taken to farmhouses in Gujarat and were kept there illegally. Tulsiram was shown to be arrested three days later from a house in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. The prosecution had claimed that senior police officers from Gujarat and Rajasthan had entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Shaikh. It claimed that they allegedly sought help from his associate Prajapati by misleading him that they needed to arrest Sohrabuddin due to political pressure, that he would later be released on bail. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) claimed that Sohrabuddin was killed in a fake encounter on November 26, 2005, in Ahmedabad . However, the then-accused police officers had alleged that Sohrabuddin had links with terrorist groups, and he was in the city to kill a well-known political leader. Kausar Bi was killed the same month, and her body was disposed of on November 29 that year. Over a year later, Prajapati was allegedly killed in another “staged” encounter in Gujarat. Between 2014 and 2018, the courts discharged 16 of 38 accused in the case, including present Union Home Minister Amit Shah , then senior IPS officers Dinesh M N, Rajkumar Pandiyan and D G Vanzara, and former Rajasthan Home Minister Gulab Chand Kataria. What the special court held in 2018 In 2018, the special court designated under the CBI Act, presided over by judge SJ Sharma, in its 358‑page judgement held that the CBI failed to produce any “documentary and substantive evidence” to establish the alleged conspiracy. It added that there was no evidence to prove “murder” charges in “homicidal” deaths of Sohrabuddin and Prajapati. The court also observed agency failed to obtain the sanction of the competent authority under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before filing the chargesheet, rendering the accused “entitled to acquittal”. The special judge had observed that witnesses had turned hostile as they “did not depose as per their respective statements recorded by the CBI during its investigation” and that, when they were in the witness box before the court, they “fearlessly” spoke the truth, “clearly indicating that their statements were wrongly recorded” by the CBI. After examining evidence, the judge observed during the probe that “the CBI was doing something other than reaching the truth of the offences” and was “more concerned in establishing a particular preconceived and premeditated theory rather than finding out the truth.” The judge recorded that “the premier investigating agency” had “a premeditated theory and a script” before it “to anyhow implicate political leaders” and the agency, instead of conducting the probe as per law, “merely did what was required to reach that goal”. The court said: “In the process of its zeal to anyhow implicate political leaders, the CBI created the evidence and placed statements…” It said that CBI had shown “negligence” in “hurriedly” completing the probe “by using replica of the earlier recorded investigation” and “implicated the police persons who had no knowledge of any conspiracy rather; they appeared innocent.” The challenge before the High Court Aggrieved by the special court verdict, Sohrabuddin’s brothers, Rubabuddin and Nayabuddin, filed appeals before the HC in April 2019 as victims, seeking quashing of the special court verdict and retrial in the case. They claimed the special judge’s findings were “contradictory to the evidence”. The appeals claimed that while over 200 witnesses were examined by the prosecution — of which 92 turned hostile — various witnesses’ statements, recorded before a magistrate or video-recorded by investigating officers, were not cited or produced before the trial court. Appeals added that testimonies of nearly 118 non-hostile witnesses were wrongly disregarded as “untrustworthy”. How the Bombay High Court ruled The HC admitted the appeals on June 24, 2019, and issued notices to the acquitted persons and the CBI. In August 2019, the HC rejected a plea by witness Mahendrasinh Zala challenging the acquittals as non-maintainable, saying he was not a victim. Follow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions. Since October 2019, the appeals by Sohrabuddin’s brothers were not heard until final hearings began in December 2025 before a bench led by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, which concluded on January 16. In October 2025, the CBI lawyer told the HC that it had “accepted” the special court’s 2018 verdict. However, the agency claimed it had not decided whether to file an appeal against the trial court verdict. Arguments before the High Court Seeking setting aside of the 2018 verdict, the appellants — among other contents — argued that sanctions of competent authority were not required and the judge failed to rely on the “admissible” testimonies of Prajapati’s co-inmate, which showed he “feared for his life”. The acquitted persons, who were respondents in the present appeals, sought their dismissal. They argued that there was no direct evidence to establish the conspiracy charge against them, and that the special court order to acquit them was justified.
