Teesta may be called for probe

The arrest of Teesta Setalvad’s one-time aide, and former Citizen for Justice and Peace (CJP) activist, Rais Khan, is significant, because the next link in the investigation could be Teesta Setalvad herself. There are now ample possibilities that Teesta could be called, at least, for investigation. However it is too early to say whether the investigation will lead to Teesta’s arrest eventually in future or not.

Rais Khan and three others were arrested this week in the Pandharwada exhuming case. They have been charged with fabricating false evidence, causing disappearance of evidence and tresspassing a burial place. All the four accused are presently on two-day remand.

Two other accused, Ghulam Gani Kharadi and Mehboob Rasul Chauhan, of the six, are yet to be arrested. During remand Police will try to identify who is the brain behind the move to exhume bodies. It is almost certain that Rais Khan is going to name Teesta as the master mind behind exhuming act. In that case it would be interesting to see what happens next.

Khan had sought to become a witness in this case to testify against Setalvad on how she had prepared false affidavits on behalf of the witnesses in the Supreme Court. The apex court reportedly set up special investigation team on basis of these affidavits.

The designated judge, Srivastava, rejected his application and issued a show-cause notice instead. The court has issued notice asking him why he should not be prosecuted under Section 177 and 182 of IPC, for furnishing false evidence before a court of law with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.

Meanwhile, the court hearing the Gulbarg Society massacre case also rejected Khan’s similar application after the probe agency, SIT, submitted that Khan’s evidence would not help the prosecution’s case. However, this court has not initiated any action against Khan. The witnesses of this case have sought transfer of the judge hearing this case, BU Joshi, on the ground that the judge was biased towards them.