No arrest yet but appear for CBI probe, says HC

A vacation bench of justices Sharmila Deshmukh and Arif Doctor was hearing a petition filed by Wankhede for quashing of the FIR registered by the CBI on May 11 and seeking a stay on the investigation being carried out by the central agency into his conduct and that of two other officers who were with Mumbai NCB in 2021.

MUMBAI: On Friday, the Bombay high court directed Indian Revenue Services officer Sameer Wankhede to appear before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the corruption case registered against him and four others for allegedly trying to extort ₹25 Crore from actor Shah Rukh Khan, whose son Aryan Khan was arrested in the Cordelia cruise drug bust case in October 2021. The court also said CBI should not take any coercive action against Wankhede until May 22.

On October 25, 2021, the NCB had constituted a Special Enquiry Team (SET) to investigate allegation of corruption against Wankhede and other NCB officials attached to Mumbai zone. The CBI FIR of May 11 is based on the finding recorded by the SET. (Anshuman Poyrekar/ HT PHOTO)

A vacation bench of justices Sharmila Deshmukh and Arif Doctor was hearing a petition filed by Wankhede for quashing of the FIR registered by the CBI on May 11 and seeking a stay on the investigation being carried out by the central agency into his conduct and that of two other officers who were with Mumbai NCB in 2021. The protection will continue till May 22, when the bench has posted Wankhede’s plea for further hearing.

On October 25, 2021, the NCB had constituted a Special Enquiry Team (SET) to investigate allegation of corruption against Wankhede and other NCB officials attached to Mumbai zone. The CBI FIR of May 11 is based on the finding recorded by the SET.

Advocate Rizwan Merchant, appearing for Wankhede, on Friday, submitted that the CBI FIR was not maintainable, as under section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, any enquiry, inquiry or investigation must be completed within four months. The NCB constituted SET on October 25, 2021, after which it submitted its report which became the basis for registration of the CBI FIR. Merchant submitted that as the FIR was filed long after the expiry of the four-month period, it should be quashed. He further added that Wankhede, who was present in court, should be granted interim protection against arrest.

Advocate Kuldeep Patil for the CBI however opposed the request for ‘no coercive action’ stating that if the protection was granted, Wankhede would not cooperate with the investigation. He submitted that after Wankhede had been summoned on May 18, he went to Delhi high court and did not attend the CBI office which was indicative of his non-cooperation with the investigators.

When the bench asked Patil to justify how the FIR could be filed after the four- month period specified under the PC Act had expired, Patil submitted that CBI had received sanction from the central government only on May 11, hence there was nothing wrong in filing the FIR belatedly.

The CBI’s advocate further said that as Wankhede had been issued notice under section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) he should respond to the summons, and should not be granted interim protection.

Rizwan Merchant, arguing on behalf of his client said: “I am willing to attend the CBI office every day from 11 to 5. My only request is to grant me protection so that I may not be arrested,” Merchant submitted. He added that Wankhede was a celebrated Indian Revenue Services (IRS) officer and if he was arrested it would seriously prejudice the morale of the entire IRS cadre.

After hearing the submissions, the bench noted that as Wankhede was willing to cooperate, he should attend the CBI office on Saturday and the protection against coercive action would continue till the next hearing on May 22nd.

In his petition, Wankhede alleged Gyaneshwar Singh, deputy director general of the NCB had acted with mala fide intent and appended certain WhatsApp chats between him and Shah Rukh Khan to say that the CBI’s allegations of extortion against him were blatantly false.

The petition further states that Khan had always initiated the chats and that Wankhede had only responded to them. “Needless to say, that Mr. Khan himself in all fairness was being persuasive in his conversation with the petitioner to take care of his son as well as to join him and assist him in ensuring “reformation of his son” to ensure a better life and future of his son.”

The petition has also alleged that some higher-ranking officers of NCB New Delhi had tried to safeguard Aryan Khan and some of the accused by maligning his name, image and reputation and the CBI FIR was also towards that end.

To drive home the point the petition refers to the alleged disclosure of Japan Babu Department Legal Advisor (DLA), NCB, New Delhi in which Babu has said that the note prepared by him on the raid by the NCB Mumbai zonal team in the Cordelia drug bust case was manipulated to give a clean chit to some of the accused on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence. This note was to be submitted to the special court along with notings on which sections of the NDPS Act could be applied to each of the accused.