Mumbai: No relief Maharashtra Government, Bombay High Court A petition filed by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for a court-monitored probe to replace the CBI probing the FIR registered against the former home minister was dismissed on Wednesday. Anil Deshmukh and on alleged corrupt deals in other police postings and transfers.
A bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sarang Kotwal, while pronouncing its judgment, read out its findings, which said: “Given the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,” and held that the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation There is no case for withdrawal. (CBI) and formed an SIT.
The HC said, “There is no merit in the contention of (MVA-run Maharashtra government) that since (Subodh Jaiswal) is now the Director of CBI, the respondent is not competent to proceed with the CBI investigation.”
The HC also said that it appears that the state’s plea is “only an attempt” “to somehow take the investigation away from the CBI so that it does not proceed.”
The High Court found no merit in the state’s argument that the CBI did not have the authority to investigate the matter. “No case is made out for withdrawing the investigation from the Respondent-CBI and handing it over to the Special Investigation Team as prayed for.
88. Before separation, we clarify that our observations in this judgment regarding the conduct and good faith of the petitioner should not be construed as an impeachment of the State of Maharashtra.
The state’s plea was on the ground that CBI director Subodh Jaiswal was its former DGP when the charges were leveled against Deshmukh and was heading the Police Establishment Board (PEB) which decides and recommends police postings.
The HC Bench made it clear that its findings or observations against the State should not ordinarily be treated as an indictment of the State of Maharashtra, but as a party to the suit and to decide the issue raised in this petition. are in the form. ,
The 74-page judgment said, “During the hearing, in response to the allegation in Ground-H of the petition that the investigation has been wrongfully conducted, the respondent- CBI voluntarily put up the papers of the investigation for perusal. In order to satisfy the conscience of the court that the investigation was not conducted in a bad manner and there is justification for the same, the petitioner opposed the taking of these sealed envelopes on record.
The HC, citing the SC’s decision in P Chidambaram’s case, said that it may “look at the material collected by the prosecution during the course of the investigation to satisfy its discretion whether the investigation is proceeding in the right direction”. ”
The HC judgment said, “After the papers of inquiry, we can say that the allegation made by the (state) that the investigation is being conducted in a poor manner is not warranted. As the investigation is ongoing, we do not wish to elaborate further and comment on the contents of the investigation papers.”
Apart from being without merit, the challenge based on Jaiswal’s role “lacks genuineness,” the HC said.
Another argument that the HC considered as lack of merit in the State’s argument is that the HC, in an order dated 5 April 2021, had entrusted the investigation to the CBI on the ground that the former Home Minister, who was the head of the police force, would not allow the investigation. The same criterion should apply to CBI once Jaiswal becomes director.
“Allegations were made against the former Home Minister, and a complaint was filed, and it is in the context of specific allegations against the Home Minister by high ranking police officers with specific details that the court passed an order to hand over the investigation. To CBI. There is no such allegation against the respondent No. 2 (Subodh Jaiswal).
Additional Solicitor General for CBI Aman Lekhi had argued that the State’s plea and plea was nothing but “complete and total hypocrisy”. “Not allowing the investigation to continue… and in some ways to protect a person or to postpone the investigation is an excuse,” Ghanta said.
Whereas senior state counsel Darius Khambata had argued that he only wanted a fair and impartial probe that an SIT would do.
In detailed submissions before the high court opposing the state’s plea, Lekhi had questioned its “conduct”.
The CBI counsel said, “The writ is wrong… this petition has been raised not even by the parties but by the state” which has no right and may not be entitled to the relief it seeks.
In return, Khambata had said, the CBI probe is “trying to demoralize and intimidate every policeman”.
A bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sarang Kotwal, while pronouncing its judgment, read out its findings, which said: “Given the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,” and held that the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation There is no case for withdrawal. (CBI) and formed an SIT.
The HC said, “There is no merit in the contention of (MVA-run Maharashtra government) that since (Subodh Jaiswal) is now the Director of CBI, the respondent is not competent to proceed with the CBI investigation.”
The HC also said that it appears that the state’s plea is “only an attempt” “to somehow take the investigation away from the CBI so that it does not proceed.”
The High Court found no merit in the state’s argument that the CBI did not have the authority to investigate the matter. “No case is made out for withdrawing the investigation from the Respondent-CBI and handing it over to the Special Investigation Team as prayed for.
88. Before separation, we clarify that our observations in this judgment regarding the conduct and good faith of the petitioner should not be construed as an impeachment of the State of Maharashtra.
The state’s plea was on the ground that CBI director Subodh Jaiswal was its former DGP when the charges were leveled against Deshmukh and was heading the Police Establishment Board (PEB) which decides and recommends police postings.
The HC Bench made it clear that its findings or observations against the State should not ordinarily be treated as an indictment of the State of Maharashtra, but as a party to the suit and to decide the issue raised in this petition. are in the form. ,
The 74-page judgment said, “During the hearing, in response to the allegation in Ground-H of the petition that the investigation has been wrongfully conducted, the respondent- CBI voluntarily put up the papers of the investigation for perusal. In order to satisfy the conscience of the court that the investigation was not conducted in a bad manner and there is justification for the same, the petitioner opposed the taking of these sealed envelopes on record.
The HC, citing the SC’s decision in P Chidambaram’s case, said that it may “look at the material collected by the prosecution during the course of the investigation to satisfy its discretion whether the investigation is proceeding in the right direction”. ”
The HC judgment said, “After the papers of inquiry, we can say that the allegation made by the (state) that the investigation is being conducted in a poor manner is not warranted. As the investigation is ongoing, we do not wish to elaborate further and comment on the contents of the investigation papers.”
Apart from being without merit, the challenge based on Jaiswal’s role “lacks genuineness,” the HC said.
Another argument that the HC considered as lack of merit in the State’s argument is that the HC, in an order dated 5 April 2021, had entrusted the investigation to the CBI on the ground that the former Home Minister, who was the head of the police force, would not allow the investigation. The same criterion should apply to CBI once Jaiswal becomes director.
“Allegations were made against the former Home Minister, and a complaint was filed, and it is in the context of specific allegations against the Home Minister by high ranking police officers with specific details that the court passed an order to hand over the investigation. To CBI. There is no such allegation against the respondent No. 2 (Subodh Jaiswal).
Additional Solicitor General for CBI Aman Lekhi had argued that the State’s plea and plea was nothing but “complete and total hypocrisy”. “Not allowing the investigation to continue… and in some ways to protect a person or to postpone the investigation is an excuse,” Ghanta said.
Whereas senior state counsel Darius Khambata had argued that he only wanted a fair and impartial probe that an SIT would do.
In detailed submissions before the high court opposing the state’s plea, Lekhi had questioned its “conduct”.
The CBI counsel said, “The writ is wrong… this petition has been raised not even by the parties but by the state” which has no right and may not be entitled to the relief it seeks.
In return, Khambata had said, the CBI probe is “trying to demoralize and intimidate every policeman”.
,