THE Gujarat High Court (HC) on Friday disposed of a petition challenging the state government’s decision to remove Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Shailendrasinh I. Ghariya from the high-profile Vadodara custodial death trial after the state informed the court that it had withdrawn the appointments of advocates Atul Vyas and Bhavin Purohit and reinstated Ghariya to conduct the prosecution.In an order made available on Saturday, Justice M K Thakker of the Gujarat HC recorded that the Home Department had placed on record a notification dated July 31, stating that the appointments of Vyas and Purohit as Special Public Prosecutors stood discontinued with immediate effect and that, in exercise of powers under Section 18(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Ghariya had been reappointed as the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the Fatehgunj police station custodial death case pending in Vadodara. In view of the notification, counsel for petitioner Salim Nisar, advocate Devarsh Pandya, did not press the petition, following which the court disposed of the matter as withdrawn.The state’s submission before the court came hours after the HC, during Friday’s hearing, strongly questioned the state over its repeated attempts to replace the prosecutor in the long-pending trial, observing that the government’s actions appeared to be delaying proceedings rather than expediting them. During the hearing, the court repeatedly asked why the State wanted to replace Ghariya despite the progress achieved under his tenure.Speaking to The Indian Express, Salim’s lawyer, Devarsh Pandya said that although the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor is the administrative discretion of the state government, in the specific case of the Vadodra custodial death, the Gujarat HC had considered the interest of justice.Pandya said, “In the present case, the HC had entertained the petition of the de facto complainant (Nisar’s son) and considered that continuation of existing Special Public Prosecutor, SI Ghariya, is beneficial to the trial and in the interest of justice. The Court has also warned that change of SPP will cause extreme prejudice to the prosecution…”Pandya said that the submission on behalf of the petitioner highlighted that the previously appointed SPP had submitted a deficient documentary list in want of evidences collected during the course of the inquiry that are mandatory for framing of charges in the trial court. Pandya said, “These are 74 documents that ought to have been part of the record while framing of charges but the SPP appointed preceding the reappointment of Advocate Ghariya went on to have the charges framed and examined 14 witnesses of which 12 had turned hostile… These were documents pertaining to the inquiry conducted during the Habeas Corpus petition filed by Salim under the eyes of the HC… the report was never furnished before the trial court.”Pandya added that although the state justified Ghariya’s removal by stating that he had taken two years to examine 51 witnesses, the actual examination of witnesses had only commenced after June 30, 2025. Pandya said, “SPP Ghariya had to make attempts to furnish the documents before the Sessions Court… The application was heard extensively but no order was delivered for nine months. These documents were relevant for examination of witnesses because you can propose examination of witnesses on those evidences during the inquiry that was carried out under the supervision of HC and ultimately led to the registration of the FIR… SPP Ghariya could not have proceeded with examination of witnesses without attaining final order from the Sessions Court settling the issue of admissibility of evidence collected during the course of inquiry…”Story continues below this adPandya said that the sessions court decided the application in June 2025 – rejecting the request to directly place the documents on record but suggesting that the Prosecution could bring on record the corresponding statements made during the course of the initial inquiry when the witnesses depose as prosecution witness during the trial.”As per the victim’s lawyers, after his re-appointment at the intervention of the High Court in April 2024, Ghariya had examined seven witnesses before making the application for exhibition of the 74 documents. This included the deposition of key police witness– Assistant Head Constable Shaktisinh Makwana, who has said that he saw Nisar tied to a chair with a belt and rope in the computer room of the police station to “restrict his movement” while the six accused tortured him to extract a confession of the theft. Shaktisinh has said that he saw the accused inserting a pen between Nisar’s fingers until he bled and “his voice faded away” and he “did not appear that he could be alive”,However, a subsequent change of trial court judge followed and the decision on the application for exhibiton of documents was made in June 2025, thereby also resuming the process of examination of witnesses, including the further deposition of Makwana. Between June 2025 and May 2026, Ghariya examined 44 witnesses in all.“What is the difficulty if he is proceeding?… It appears that during his tenure, he examined the maximum number of witnesses. Why are you interrupting the trial? What is your interest with regard to the progress of the trial?” Justice Thakker had orally remarked during the hearing earlier on Friday, while questioning the State’s justification for replacing him.Story continues below this adThe court had also rejected the state’s contention that the trial had not progressed satisfactorily under Ghariya, observing that 51 witnesses have been examined between April 2024 and June 2026. When the state admitted that it had no record of having reminded Ghariya to speed up the trial before seeking his replacement, the court observed, “Then how can you say the matter was conveyed to him?… You are wasting the court’s time. Under the guise that this person is not doing the work which is up to the mark, you are delaying the trial.”The court had orally said that appointing a fresh prosecutor at such an advanced stage would only slow the proceedings because the new prosecutor would first have to familiarise himself with the voluminous trial record.The petition arose from the state government’s June 2 decision to discontinue Ghariya as Special Public Prosecutor in the trial relating to the alleged custodial death of 65-year-old Telangana daily wage labourer Shaikh Babu Nisar, who allegedly disappeared after being taken into custody by Vadodara’s Fatehgunj police in December 2019. Acting on a habeas corpus petition filed by his son, Salim Nisar, the HC had directed registration of an FIR, leading to a CID investigation. The CID later concluded that Nisar was tortured in police custody and that his body was disposed of in a canal, though it was never recovered. Eight police personnel were chargesheeted in 2020 for offences including murder and destruction of evidence.The next date of the trial proceedings in the Vadodara sessions court is August 7.