Param Bir Singh untraceable; not inclined to continue no coercive action statement, state tells HC

The state submitted that as there were developments in other matters it could not continue the statement which was made concerning the case registered against Param Bir Singh by a police officer under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The Bombay high court (HC), while hearing the petition of former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, was informed by the state government that it was not willing to continue its statement of no coercive action including arrest, as Singh was not traceable. The state submitted that as there were developments in other matters it could not continue the statement which was made concerning the case registered against Singh by a police officer under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Singh has sought quashing of the first information report (FIR).

Bombay high court (HC), while hearing the petition of former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh, was informed by the state government that it was not willing to continue its statement of no coercive action including arrest. (HT PHOTO)

While hearing the petition, a division bench of justice Nitin Jamdar and justice Sarang Kotwal was informed by senior advocate Darius Khambata, for the state that as reports suggested that he (Singh) was not traceable, the state was not willing to give a statement in his matter.

However, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for Singh submitted that as the state government had not declared his client as absconding, it should continue the statement till further hearing. Jethmalani submitted that Singh had responded twice to the summons issued to him in the atrocity’s cases.

Apart from sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, various other sections were added in the FIR lodged on a complaint of police inspector Bhimrao Ghadge. Ghadge has alleged that when he refused to comply with Singh’s order of dropping the names of a few persons from an FIR in 2015, Singh had got FIRs against him and had also hurled castiest remarks against him for non-compliance.

In another petition filed by Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rashmi Shukla, senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani who represented her reiterated that Maharashtra government’s action of filing an FIR against her in the illegal phone tapping case was an attempt to keep a gun on her head. Jethmalani submitted that Shukla had performed her duty according to the mandate given to her and had maintained secrecy as per the law.

Jethmalani further argued that there was no reason for the state to invoke the Official Secrets Act against Shukla when the state maintained that the report, she submitted to her superior was a roving probe. The senior advocate argued that the FIR against Shukla was nothing but an attempt to suppress the presence of political influence and corruption in police transfers and postings. He added that the state government was trying to shield chief secretary Sitaram Kunte, who had sanctioned the phone tapping while he was the additional chief secretary.

“There is a serious attempt to avoid judicial, CBI or ED scrutiny of these documents,” submitted Jethmalani while seeking quashing of the FIR.

The bench will continue hearing of Shukla’s petition on Thursday.