Suspended senior police inspector Pradeep Suryavanshi, who has been arrested for his alleged role in the suspected fake encounter of an alleged Chhota Rajan aide in 2006, was convicted for contempt of court.
On Friday, a division bench of justice AM Khanwilkar and justice AR Joshi sentenced Suryavanshi to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on him.
In July 2009, the high court had initiated contempt proceedings against the suspended senior inspector after receiving a letter from RK Shaikh, metropolitan magistrate of the Andheri railway mobile court seeking action against Suryavanshi for illegal activities and issuing threats to her.
Shaikh was asked to conduct a judicial inquiry into the alleged fake encounter of alleged Rajan gang member Ramnarayan Gupta alias Lakkhan Bhaiya.
In July 2010, the disciplinary committee had found Suryavanshi guilty of allegedly threatening Shaikh and stopped his increment for two years as punishment. Besides, the report stated the commissioner of police had recommended the suspension of police inspectors Dilip Palande and Arvind Sarvankar and sub-inspectors Ganesh Harpude and Anand Patade.
While Suryavanshi had claimed that there had been a misunderstanding, advocate Shyam Marwadi, who was appointed as amicus curie (friend of court), and additional public prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik, opposed his arguments.
Suryavanshi claimed that he had called assistant public prosecutor Chandrashekhar Patil asking him for a copy of the report prepared by the magistrate.
But Patil, who was in the magistrate’s chamber at that time, put the call on loudspeaker and what Suryavanshi said was misconstrued because of disruption in the network.
Suryavanshi’s counsel Dhiraj Mirajkar had said: “Suryavanshi had told the prosecutor, Madam ne report pathavila. Aamche vatole jhale. Mee baghto te. Mala tyachi nakkal deyayla sanga. [Madam has sent the report. We are ruined. I will see that. Tell her to give me a copy]. But Shaikh said she heard him say Madamcha vatola hoil. (Madam will be in trouble)’.”
The prosecutor had produced Patil’s statement, which had supported the magistrate.