‘Name unknown persons mentioned in FIR along with ex-Maharashtra min Anil Deshmukh’

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to disclose the names of the ‘unknown persons’ mentioned in its April 21 first information report (FIR) registered against former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh

The Bombay high court (HC) on Monday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to disclose the names of the ‘unknown persons’ mentioned in its April 21 first information report (FIR) registered against former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh.

HT Image

HC said that as over two months had lapsed since the registration of FIR, it expected names of all the accused to be disclosed and directed the central agency to clearly mention the names of the unknown persons, which may include members of the panel which was responsible for reinstating former assistant police inspector (API) Sachin Vaze.

The division bench of justice SS Shinde and justice NJ Jamadar, while hearing Deshmukh’s petition challenging CBI’s case against him and unknown persons on charges of bribery, corruption and criminal conspiracy, was informed by senior advocate Amit Desai along with advocate Kamlesh Ghumre that the Central agency had failed to take the state government’s consent before registering the FIR and commencing investigations.

Desai reiterated that CBI had bypassed the provisions laid down under the Prevention of Corruption Act by not availing prior approvals from the state to investigate a public servant. He termed CBI’s action as illegal and arbitrary, and in breach of law.

Before Desai could continue, the bench sought to know from additional solicitor general Aman Lekhi – representing CBI – who the unknown persons mentioned in the FIR were.

“In FIR, you have mentioned petitioner and other unknown persons as the accused. We usually see that in robbery, theft and dacoity cases. You have conducted the preliminary inquiry; then who are the unknown persons? It was your responsibility to mention the names of everyone involved and not just Deshmukh. We want to know the status of the investigation by CBI so far. Give us the investigation progress report in a sealed envelope; we will see and then return it.”

The bench also drew the attention of the agency to HC’s words in the April 5 order that directed CBI to conduct a probe against Deshmukh and said that the inquiry was ordered to restore public confidence in administration. Hence, the names of the other accused should also be mentioned. The bench clarified that it was not forming any opinion but was just an observation while having a dialogue with the lawyers.

Desai then said that the FIR was vague and it seemed that there was an attempt to protect certain people by not mentioning their names in it. He then added that there was no doubt in CBI’s ability.

“Please don’t misunderstand me. CBI has done exceptional work in some cases. But I’m arguing on point of law. Public confidence will be upheld only when the investigating agency abides by the provisions of law for all individuals,” said Desai.

In the post-lunch session, when Desai sought to continue his arguments, the bench stopped him as it was informed by the lawyers of Elgar Parishad accused Stan Swamy that the 84-year-old had passed away in Holy Family Hospital, Bandra, due to cardiac arrest. The court said that it would have to pass a detailed order in Swamy’s case, and hence, adjourned the hearing of Deshmukh’s plea to Wednesday.