IPS Officer Rashmi Shukla's Statement To Be Video Recorded In Hyderabad, No Arrest Till The Next Date-Bombay High Court

Shukla's statement will be recorded in connection with an FIR against unknown persons for leaking sensitive documents related to the police-political nexus in police transfers, for offences under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, section 30 of the Indian Telegraph Act and sec 43 of 66 of the Information Technology Act.

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Justice Manish Pitale heard Shukla's petition on Thursday and recorded Senior Advocate Darius Khambata's statement for the State.

The bench, however, clarified that the CBI can continue investigating allegations against former State Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, of which Shukla is an integral part. The ex-CP Param Bir Singh has cited Shukla's report while making corruption allegations against Deshmukh.

"ASG submits that the CBI has commenced the investigation. This order is not to be construed as any hindrance to any further investigation for the CBI. These directions are confined to the present petition only."

Mumbai police's cyber cell had summoned Shukla to appear on April 26 and 28, and subsequently on May 3, which is when she approached the court. She cited the pandemic for her inability to travel.

The cyber cell registered an FIR against unknown persons under the Official Secrets Act after former CM BJP's Devendra Fadnavis leaked call intercepts of IPS officers and other sensitive details. The calls were recorded when Shukla was heading the State Intelligence Department (SID).

Fadnavis cited a letter purportedly written by Shukla to the then Director General of Police about alleged corruption in police transfers.

Maharashtra's Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte had alleged in a report submitted to Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray that it appeared that Shukla herself had leaked the confidential information (to Fadnavis).

"Why is the CBI so interested?"

During the hearing, the court first asked Khambata what was the maximum punishment for the offences under which the case was registered. "Three years," Khambata said.

"So the state will have to invoke section 41 (issuing notice to the accused), if the offence is not punishable with 7 yrs." Justice Shinde noted.

However, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing on behalf of Shukla said the State should make a statement that there will be no arrest.

To this, Khambata said, "I want to make an alternate suggestion. We don't know when will the pandemic get over and if she can't leave from Hyderabad, we will send a team and will do a recording of her statement. But she must cooperate."

Jethmalani agreed, but insisted on a statement. "They should make a statement they will not arrest her."

"It will be graceful on the part of the State to make a statement," the bench said.

Khambata then took instructions and submitted, "We don't intend to arrest her till the next date." He, however, said that the statement should be considered as one made under section 161 of the CrPC and that it would be video recorded without anyone's presence in the room.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the CBI said, "This entire matter arises from a complaint of (former) Mumbai Police Commissioner (Param Bir Singh) alleging large scale corruption, to which Khambata objected. "Why is the CBI so interested?"

The bench then asked ASG about CBI's role in Rashmi Shukla's current petition. "The entire case arises from a complaint made by Param Bir Singh which includes recordings authorised by Rashmi Shukla as Addl DG."

The bench then recorded Khambata and Jethmalani's statements and adjourned the matter beyond vacation.

In her petition, Shukla has said she is one of the senior-most IPS officers of 1988 Cadre in police Service for more than 30 years, her plea states.

She has accused the State of arm-twisting her by bogus and frivolous case.

"The petitioner has exposed the nexus between Ministers and Politicians and other gross corruption involved in assigning postings to police officers. This reveals the courage and integrity of the petitioner in performing her official duties and making her best endeavours to expose and eliminate corruption by bringing the guilty to books."

The Maharashtra Government's petition against two paragraphs of the CBI's FIR against Deshmukh, and Param Bir Singh's petition against a Thane FIR could not be heard due to paucity of time.

The bench granted them the liberty to approach the vacation bench.

[Rashmi Shukla vs State of Maharashtra]