Corruption probe: HC pulls up senior Maharashtra cop as state denies documents to CBI

CBI said despite HC’s order asking the agency to continue its investigation into the allegations made by Param Bir Singh, the government was not parting with documents

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday issued a notice to the additional chief secretary (home) after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed that an assistant commissioner of police was issuing threats to them and refusing to hand over documents pertaining to the report of former state intelligence commissioner Rashmi Shukla about corruption in transfers and postings of police officers.

The plea filed by CBI, complaining about the state not complying with court orders and directions, will be heard on August 11. (HT File)

CBI submitted that despite the court’s July 22 order asking the agency to continue its investigation into the allegations of corruption made by former Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh against ex-state home minister Anil Deshmukh, the Maharashtra government was not parting with the documents.

The plea filed by CBI, complaining about the state not complying with court orders and directions, will be heard on August 11.

During the course of hearing, the division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar was informed by additional solicitor general Anil Singh that following the July 22 HC order, the central agency had sought documents pertaining to the allegations made by Singh in his letter to the chief minister on March 20.

Additional general solicitor Anil Singh, appearing for CBI, submitted that during the pendency of the petition filed by the state government for deletion of two unnumbered paragraphs from the first information report (FIR) against Deshmukh on April 21, the agency had not sought the documents pertaining to two contentious issues – Shukla’s report and ex-cop Sachin Vaze’s reinstatement in service.

Singh said after HC decided on the state’s petition and permitted CBI to continue its investigation, the agency had written to the state intelligence department, seeking documents pertaining to Shukla’s report. But the officer concerned at the state intelligence department refused to share the documents claiming that they were part of an ongoing probe by the government.

Singh submitted that the tenor of letter hinted at a threat by the officer and when approached, the DG (director general) said that a state direction was awaited to hand over the documents. Aggrieved by the refusal, CBI had approached the court.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed, “Some ACP is threatening CBI officers. Please find out what is the situation. Please do not create an unfair situation that we have to take them to task.”

The court, thereafter, issued notice to the state and the additional chief secretary of the home department.