He made this submission through his lawyer during hearing on his bail plea.
His counsel V D Gajjar told CBI court judge K R Upahyaya that the IB, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court in August, had clearly mentioned that the four persons killed in the encounter were terror suspects and the claim was supported by a statement of David Headly, a 26/11 plotter.
Vanzara was not aware about IB's inputs and he only executed the operation on the instructions of his superior. However, the central agency did not make Kaushik an accused in the encounter case, Gajjar said.
In the FIR, CBI relied upon statements of some police inspectors, who said they took part in the encounter on the orders of their superiors. Vanzara also did the same, then why was he "framed" while his superiors were not named accused by the agency, he asked.
Also Read
CBI lawyer L D Tiwari said the probe agency had not received sanction from the Union Home Ministry, as required under Section 197 of CrPC, to proceed against the IB officers.
Section 197 of CrPC provides that no public servant can be prosecuted for an alleged offence committed during discharge of official duty without the government's nod.
Responding to this, Gajjar said CBI did not opt for any such permission before naming Vanzara or any other Gujarat Police officer in the charge sheet. The court, after hearing the submissions, adjourned the matter to December 5.
CBI, after a probe, concluded the encounter was "fake" and carried out jointly by Gujarat Police and IB. Besides Vanzara, over a dozen policemen, including IPS officers, were charged with murder and criminal conspiracy.