Sohrabuddin-Kauserbi-Prajapati fake encounter: accused are free, trial is on investigator
New Delhi: For the last three years, the former investigating officer (IO) of the Sohrabuddin-Kauser Bi, Tulsiram Prajapati killing cases, is facing multiple criminal investigations at the hands of his own agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Evidence has emerged suggesting that the CBI is possibly trying to frame its former IO by manufacturing false evidence against him.
According to a report published on thewire.in, the accused in Sohrabuddin-Kauserbi-Prajapati fake encounter case are free and investigating officer is on trial.
The officer in question is Sandeep Tamgadge, a 2001 batch IPS officer belonging to the Nagaland cadre. He was on deputation to CBI from October 2011 till October 2015. From 2011 to 2015, Tamgadge held multiple charges in the CBI, the most important of which was Superintendent of Police of the Special Crime Branch of CBI, Mumbai. Between November 2011 and April 2014, he investigated the two cases involving the killings of Sohrabuddin, his wife Kauser Bi and a key witness, Tulsiram Prajapati. It is CBI’s case that Kauser Bi was raped before she was killed and her body was burnt and disposed off.
Tamgadge also supervised the investigation of the killing of Ishrat Jahan and under his supervision the agency filed two chargesheets in this case arraigning a slew of senior Gujarat police officers, who were considered close to the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and then Minister of State for Home Amit Shah.
Tamgadge had twice interrogated Shah in connection with his alleged role in these multiple killings—once in January 2012 in connection with the Prajapati murder case and again in October 2013 to probe Shah’s alleged role in the Ishrat Jahan killing.
Besides interrogating the key accused, including Shah, and filing chargesheets against him and others, Tamgadge had submitted multiple status reports on the ongoing investigations before the Supreme Court of India. All the judges who were part of the bench supervising the investigations had never expressed any dissatisfaction with Tamgadge’s work.
Yet, the CBI withdrew Tamgadge from the investigation of the Gujarat killing cases in April 2014, just weeks ahead of the swearing in of the Narendra Modi government at the Centre. Six months after Tamgadge’s removal from the cases, on December 30, 2014, Amit Shah was discharged by a special CBI judge, M.B Gosavi. In July 2015, the security cover provided to Tamgadge was withdrawn. In October 2015, he was repatriated to his home cadre, Nagaland.
Since repatriating him to his home cadre, the CBI has launched two investigations against Tamgadge in connection with the two investigations that he had supervised while he was holding the charge of SP, ACB wing of CBI, Nagpur. In one such investigation credible pieces of evidence have emerged to suggest that the CBI is trying to implicate Tamgadge by creating false evidence.
According to thewire.in’s report, though the CBI could not find any evidence of wrongdoing by Tamgadge and has instead charged a junior officer with criminal misappropriation, the agency has still recommended major penalty against the IO of Gujarat encounter cases. The ground taken by the CBI is that he was negligent is his duty as a supervisory officer. Major penalty includes possible dismissal from the service. This recommendation is pending with the government of Nagaland.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
