Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case: 2 Gujarat cops resign after SC order

Ahmedabad: Senior Gujarat police officers NK Amin and Tarun Barot, accused in alleged fake encounter cases, resigned on Thursday, hours after giving an undertaking before the Supreme Court that they will demit their posts to which they had been re-appointed after retirement.

They gave the undertaking before the top court in the wake of a petition challenging their re-induction despite their "questionable track record".

Doctor-turned-police officer Amin, was serving as the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Tapi district.

Barot was re-inducted in October last year as Deputy Superintendent of Police with Western Railways at Vadodara for one year after his retirement.

Amin said Barot and he decided to step down from their respective posts to save the state government from "embarrassment" in the wake of the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court.

"We have decided to step down to save the government from any embarrassment. Apart from police service, there are many other ways to serve the people. I thank the people of Tapi district and of Gujarat for their love and support," Amin told PTI.

Barot too said he was left with no other option but to resign.

"What else was I supposed to do after the Supreme Court asked us to step down. I have sent my resignation today to the state government," he said.

Amin faced trial in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Ishrat Jahan fake encounter cases. Barot was accused in the Ishrat Jahan and the Sadiq Jamal encounter cases.

While Amin was discharged in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case last year by a special CBI court in Mumbai, Barot is still facing charges in both the Ishrat Jahan and Sadiq Jamal cases.

Earlier in the day, Amin and Barot gave an undertaking before the Supreme Court that they will demit their posts during the day.

A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud considered the statement of the lawyer appearing for the two police officers and asked them to "step down" from their posts during the day itself.

The bench then disposed of the plea filed by former IPS officer Rahul Sharma against the re-induction of these two officers.

Sharma had challenged the Gujarat High Court's decision dismissing his plea against re-induction of Amin and Barot.

In his plea before the SC, Sharma had contended that these appointments have been made despite "bearing in mind the questionable track record of the two officers" and these are in violation of guidelines of the Supreme Court and in violation of "the doctrine of public trust", the plea had said.

Amin served eight years in jail following his arrest in August 2007. Though he was discharged in the Sohrabuddin case, the Ishrat Jahan case against him is still pending before the trial court.

After getting bail in May 2015 in Ishrat case, the state government revoked his suspension and reinstated him in the service as the Deputy SP in the State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB), Gandhinagar.

Soon, he was appointed as SP of Mahisagar district. After he retired on August 31, 2016, he was re-appointed on the same position on contractual basis.

During his stint, Amin was embroiled in a controversy after two married women from the district knocked the doors of Gujarat High Court alleging that Amin is harassing their family since long and making derogatory remarks against women in the family.

Following the litigation, state government shifted Amin to Tapi district as the SP in December 2016. Barot, also an accused in two alleged fake encounter cases of Ishrat Jahan and Sadiq Jamal, was charge sheeted and arrested in both the cases and released on bail in June 2015.

Barot retired in 2014 while still in jail. However, after almost two years of his retirement, state government appointed him as the Deputy SP of Western Railway, Vadodara, in October 2016. He was appointed on a one-year contractual term.

When Sharma challenged the appointments of these officers before the Gujarat High Court in November last year, the Gujarat government had defended its stand by claiming in their affidavit that both the officers were given contractual appointment as their performance was assessed as "outstanding" in confidential reports.