The case was transferred from Gujarat to Mumbai. On the first day of hearing on May 9, the judge issued summons to Mr Shah, asking him to be present on May 23. Mr Shah travelled to Delhi from Gujarat yesterday along with Mr Modi, who is preparing to take oath as Prime Minister of India on Monday. Sources say Mr Shah can file an exemption plea in the Mumbai court today. (With Cook, Personal Aides, Narendra Modi Checks into Delhi)
Mr Shah has been accused of sanctioning the fake encounters that led to the deaths of Tulsiram Prajapati in 2006 and the petty criminal he worked for, Sohrabuddin Sheikh, in 2005. He was arrested in July 2010 and released on bail three months later.
The CBI filed a charge-sheet in the case in September last year and named Mr Shah, the former Home Minister of Gujarat, along with 18 others, including several police officers. Mr Shah has been booked for criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence and offences under the Arms Act.
Sohrabuddin, his wife Kauser Bi and Tulsiram were traveling on a bus from Andhra Pradesh in 2005 when they were abducted by the Gujarat police. Sohrabuddin and his wife were killed a few days later. Tulsiram, the sole witness to their abduction, was shot dead a year later; the police claimed that he was trying to escape from their custody.
Before the state government admitted that the deaths were fake encounters, the police alleged that Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram were terrorists, who planned to assassinate political leaders. But later, investigations by the CBI suggested that Sohrabuddin had become an irritant for the powerful marble lobby in Rajasthan with constant attempts to blackmail some of its big players. Mr Shah, the CBI says, was roped in to help, and as Home Minister commissioned the police to assassinate Sohrabuddin.
Team Modi and free speech: Republishing "9 Myth Busters Of Gujarat 2002 Riots" by Shehzad Poonawalla On April 29, Shehzad Poonawalla wrote a piece for the DNA called Between Myths and Truths. It was about 9 myths being propagated Narendra Modi with regard to 2002. The article was posted at 1 pm and was popular on social media. DNA itself tweeted about the article three times. In less than 24 hours, without notice, the article was pulled down. Here's speculation as to why it was withdrawn.