Reply to Anil Deshmukh’s plea in 4 weeks: Bombay HC to CBI

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale directed the CBI to respond to Deshmukh’s petition in four weeks and told the counsel representing the former cabinet minister to move the vacation bench in case of “extreme urgency”.

The Bombay high court (HC) on Thursday heard a clutch of petitions including one filed by former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh seeking interim protection from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which recently completed a preliminary enquiry (PE) on allegations of corruption against him, as well as those filed by senior Indian Police Service officer Rashmi Shukla and former Mumbai Police commissioner Param Bir Singh which sought protection against coercive action in two separate FIRs filed against them by the Mumbai Police.

Former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh. (PTI)

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale directed the CBI to respond to Deshmukh’s petition in four weeks and told the counsel representing the former cabinet minister to move the vacation bench in case of “extreme urgency”.

The petitions are the fallout of a letter that Singh wrote on March 20 alleging Deshmukh ran an extortion racket. The letter, addressed to the chief minister also referred to an August 2020 report by Shukla, who was commissioner of the State Intelligence Department at the time, on a purported “money for transfer” scam involving police officers, middlemen and politicians.

The HC on Thursday extracted a promise from the Maharashtra state that it would not arrest Shukla, who is on central deputation in Hyderabad, till the next date of hearing her plea, and directed Singh to move the vacation bench for relief as it could not hear his petition due to a paucity of time.

Deshmukh, who initially brazened out the allegations of corruption, resigned on April 5 citing moral grounds after the Bombay HC directed the CBI to probe Singh’s allegations. The CBI lodged an FIR on April 21 against Deshmukh under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act [which pertains to illegal gratification obtained by a public servant] and section 120(b) [criminal conspiracy] of the Indian Penal Code and submitted the findings of it PE in a sealed envelope to the court on April 30.

The politician filed a petition on May 3 which claimed that the FIR was filed with a “biased, dubious and ulterior motive at the behest of those having political or other vendetta” against him and sought interim protection from the CBI.

“We cannot pass any orders without hearing the parties concerned. If there is extreme urgency, then you (Deshmukh) can move the vacation bench of the HC. You (Deshmukh) have that liberty,” the court told Deshmukh’s counsel Amit Desai. It asked the CBI to file an affidavit in response to the plea.

Senior advocate Darius Khambata appearing for the state told the bench on Thursday that Shukla would not be arrested till the next date of hearing her plea challenging the FIR registered by the Mumbai cybercrime police for alleged illegal phone tapping and alleged leaking of sensitive documents related to police postings.

Shukla, who is currently in Hyderabad serving as the additional director general of Central Reserve Police Force, South Zone, moved the court on May 3 after she received a summons from Mumbai cyber police asking her to appear before the investigation officer on the following day. She had also failed to appear at two previous summons -- on April 26 and 28.

The Mumbai police filed an FIR against unidentified persons on March 26 under the Official Secrets Act, the Information Technology Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, which are punishable up to three years only, for allegedly illegally tapping phones and leaking confidential documents, based on a complaint filed by the Maharashtra intelligence department.

The IPS officer sought the quashing of the FIR or its transfer to the CBI for further investigation.

In her petition, Shukla said that she had “exposed the nexus between ministers and politicians” narrated the events during her posting in the state between October 11, 2018, and September 3, 2020, in which time between July 17-29, 2020, she had intercepted the calls of six men who were acting as middlemen in a purported “money for transfer” scam.

Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte however had said in March that the interception was done under the guise of “public safety” and “misguided the authorities”, and that there was no evidence of such a scam.

“We will hear this petition after the summer vacation. Until then it will be graceful on the state government’s part to make a statement that it would not take any coercive action,” Justice Shinde said.

“It is a fairly important investigation. We don’t know when the COVID-19 pandemic will end. Hence, the police are willing to send a team to Hyderabad where they could record the petitioner’s statement,” Khambata said.

Shukla’s counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said the IPS officer is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

Singh’s petition sought quashing of an FIR registered against him under the Prevention of Atrocities Act last month based on a complaint by police inspector Bhimrao Ghadge posted at Akola in Maharashtra.

Ghadge made a series of allegations of corruption against Singh and other officers when Singh was posted with the Thane police.

The bench asked Singh to move the vacation bench in case there was any urgency and did not hear a fresh petition filed by Singh challenging the state government’s decision to entrust two enquiries against him to DGP Sanjay Pandey.

The bench also did not hear the petition filed by the Maharashtra government seeking direction to the CBI to delete two topics from the purview of their investigation into corruption charges against Deshmukh: the reinstatement of controversial Mumbai police officer Sachin Vaze, arrested in connection with the Antilia bomb scare and subsequent murder of Thane trader Mansukh Hiran, and the purported corruption in police transfers and postings of senior police officers.