New Delhi: After hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order that upheld their acquittal, the Supreme Court has sought responses from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and 22 people acquitted in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged “fake” encounter case.
What happened in the Sohrabuddin case
The court sought statements from some important witnesses for a limited examination of the acquittal verdict. It asked the parties to place before it the statements of three or four witnesses they consider most important. It also made it clear that it would examine the acquittal decision on a limited record. The investigation later moved to the CBI. The case was later transferred from Ahmedabad to Mumbai by the Supreme Court. It also found that the alleged conspiracy behind the killings had not been established through reliable evidence.
The case was heard by the apex court on Monday (September 28). The challenge has been filed by Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin Shaikh against the Bombay High Court judgment of May 7, 2026. The high court had upheld the December 2018 verdict of the special CBI court that acquitted all 22 accused. The next hearing in the top court is scheduled for October 28. The court has taken note of the fact that 92 prosecution witnesses turned hostile during the trial. It will not review one portion of the high court order, particularly paragraph 43, according to the submissions made during the hearing. The Supreme Court had ordered the cntral investigating agency to conduct further investigation in 2010 after Rubabuddin approached the court seeking a change in the investigation.
The bench said it wanted to examine the statements of some important witnesses before proceeding with the challenge to the acquittals. The court said that it was not calling for the entire record at this stage. The high court said the prosecution could not prove that Sohrabuddin and Kausar Bi had been abducted by Gujarat and Rajasthan police from a bus. The court described the prosecution case as dependent on circumstantial evidence and said that the chain required to establish guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
