Breaking: Bombay High Court Dismisses Maharashtra Govt's Plea For Court Monitored SIT Probe Into Allegations Against Anil Deshmukh

The state had objected to the ongoing CBI probe against Deshmukh with CBI director Subodh Kumar Jaiswal at the helm. The state claimed that Jaiswal was the former DGP of Maharashtra and part of the Police Establishment Board (PEB) overseeing the transfer and postings of police officers in question. Therefore the probe can't be impartial.

A division bench of Justices NJ Jamdar and Sarang Kotwal reserved the state's petition for orders on November 26.

"To conclude, considering the totality of the circumstances including the conduct of the Petitioner as noticed by the judicial orders and manifested from the record, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Petition. There is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent- CBI is disentitled to carry out investigation in the matter. No case is made out for withdrawing the investigation from the Respondent- CBI and entrust it to the Special Investigation Team as prayed for."

On April 24, the CBI registered a case against Deshmukh and unknown others under sections 7 of the PC Act and 120B of the IPC, following Bombay High Court's order directing a preliminary enquiry against him.

The state challenged certain portions in the FIR in May 2021 regarding transfers and postings of police officers but failed.

It re-approached the HC through the present petition following CBI's summons to high-ranking bureaucrats in Maharashra's administration, Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte and DGP Sanjay Pandey. The state has sought a stay on CBI's proceedings in the interim.

Arguments

The state represented by Senior Advocate Darius Khambata contended that when Jaiswal was part of the PEB, the government approved over 92% of the recommendations during Deshmukh's tenure. Therefore, CBI won't conduct an impartial and independent investigation with Jaiswal heading the central agency and getting regular probe updates.

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi for CBI contended that the state's apprehensions were misplaced because it had failed to show that Jaiswal was influencing the probe in any manner. Moreover, even if 92% of recommendations were by PEB, 7% were under Deshmukh.

Moreover, Jaiswal was appointed as the CBI director in May, despite which this grievance wasn't raised while hearing the earlier petition. Hence, the plea is belated. Lekhi reiterated that there were no malafides in the probe. Deshmukh was being investigated pursuant to the HC's April 5 orders and not Jaiwal's whim.

Lekhi also objected to the state filing the petition on behalf of the two bureaucrats.

However, Khambata argued that the CBI probe affected the entire state police force. So the state filed the plea under the "parens patriae (power to protect persons who are unable to act on their behalf) jurisdiction."

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai for DCP Pandey denied transcripts with excerpts of his alleged conversation with Param Bir Singh, former Mumbai Police Commission. He allegedly advised Singh to withdraw his letter to the CM dated March 20, 2021.

The CBI also submitted their progress report to the court in a sealed cover.

Incidentally, the CBI summoned Pandey and Kunte after the Mumbai police summoned Jaiswal in connection with the FIR into the "illegal" phone tapping and data leak case.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment