"Bombay High Court Expresses Displeasure Over CBI's Evasive Stance on Sameer Wankhede's Arrest in Bribery Case"
In a hearing today, the Bombay High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for failing to provide a clear response regarding the potential arrest of IRS officer Sameer Wankhede in a bribery case filed against him. The division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and SG Dige was addressing the CBI's plea to revoke an interim protection order granted to Wankhede on May 19 of this year.
The CBI's counsel appeared hesitant to answer the court's queries, prompting the bench to remark, "You are a prime investigating agency. Why are you playing hide and seek? Why are you shying away from stating whether you want to arrest him or not?"
The court highlighted that since the CBI had issued a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), there should be no need for Wankhede's arrest. However, the court urged the CBI to clarify whether they intended to arrest Wankhede, suggesting a 48-hour notice period if an arrest was imminent.
CBI counsel Kuldeep Patil responded by suggesting that Wankhede could seek anticipatory bail in the sessions court. Dissatisfied with the counsel's lack of a straightforward response, the bench questioned why the agency was evading the question.
The court further recommended that the CBI provide a notice of 48 hours before making any arrest and stated that Wankhede could be directed to approach the sessions court for bail.
Patil argued that he was merely requesting the court to refrain from restraining the agency's investigation activities. However, the bench remained unsatisfied and asked for the case diary to assess the stage of the investigation.
The court said, "You show us that the stage of arrest has reached from the documents. Let us see the facts."
Patil indicated that he would present the case diary on Monday.
The bench expressed concerns about the CBI's reluctance to make a clear statement and questioned the maintenance of the diary, stating, "The insistence to not make a statement (that you don't want to arrest him) is raising serious doubts. How do we know you are maintaining the diary properly? You have three days. It may be loosely maintained diary."
The CBI had registered a criminal case against Wankhede, accusing him of demanding a bribe of ₹25 crores from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan in exchange for refraining from implicating Khan's son, Aryan Khan, in the 2021 Cordelia cruise ship drugs case. Wankhede was charged under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Previously, the High Court had granted interim protection to Wankhede after he filed a plea seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) against him.
The CBI asserted that it had obtained the necessary sanction from the Home Ministry to initiate action against Wankhede under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, Wankhede challenged this sanction, claiming that it was invalid and lacked jurisdiction.
TAGS: Bombay High Court CBI displeasure Sameer Wankhede arrest bribery case IRS officer evasion interim protection order reluctance hide and seek question notice anticipatory bail case diary investigation code of criminal procedure clear answer dissatisfaction.
