News Analysis India

Tag: CBI

  • CBI team reaches incident site, begins investigation

     A team of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has taken up the investigation of the Hathras incident, on Tuesday, reached the victim’s village Bulgadhi on Tuesday amid tight security, said the police.

    The brother of the victim was taken to the spot of the incident by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Ahead of the CBI’s visit, police personnel were also deployed in the area. On Tuesday, the family of the deceased girl returned to the district after appearing in front of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The statements of the deceased’s family members on her cremation were recorded before the court on Monday.

    Earlier in the day, Hathras victim’s family returned to their home in Bulgadhi village after appearing before the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court. It is noteworthy that the bench had taken suo moto cognisance of the incident in which a 19-year old woman had died on September 29 after the alleged assault and gang-rape on September 14.

    The CBI had recently registered a case against an accused and took up the investigation of the Hathras incident. The case was filed on the request of the Uttar Pradesh government and “further notification from the Government of India.”A 19-year-old Dalit woman had succumbed to her injuries at Delhi’s Safdarjung Hospital on September 29 after being assaulted and allegedly gang-raped in Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras on September 14.

  • Hearing in the Supreme Court today on the plea for a CBI inquiry

    A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court on the plea for a CBI inquiry into the death of Disha Salian, manager of Sushant Singh Rajput. It is to be heard today. The petition described the death of Sushant and Disha as interlinked. The PIL is listed for hearing in a bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde. On a petition filed by Puneet Kaur Dhanda through advocate Vineet Dhanda, the Mumbai Police has been sought to direct the police to file a detailed investigation report in the case, as it is reported that their case file is missing or deleted. Dhanda appealed to the court that if the court found it unsatisfactory, the case could be referred to the CBI for further investigation. Salian was killed on June 8 after falling from the 14th floor of a building (Regent Galaxy) in Mumbai’s Malad West after the lockdown ended . A week later, on the morning of 14 June, Sushant Singh Rajput allegedly committed suicide, which aroused suspicion, the petition said. The petition has argued that Salian was in a relationship with actor Rohan Rai. The two were about to get married after the lockdown.

  • Mulayam, Akhilesh launch SP campaign from Ferozabad

    Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav along with his father Mulayam Singh Yadav formally kicked off the poll campaign for 2019 Lok Sabha elections from Ferozabad on Friday.

    Akhilesh was elected to Lok Sabha from Ferozabad seat in the 2009 general election and at present his cousin and SP general secretary Ram Gopal Yadav’s son Akshay Yadav represents the constituency.

    The launching of poll campaign from Ferozabad is politically significant for Samajwadi Party as Akhilesh’s estranged uncle and bitter rival Shivpal Singh Yadav is likely to contest from the seat in the 2019 Lok Sabha poll.

    Shivpal has floated his party — Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia).

    Both Akhilesh and Mulayam targeted the Bharatiya Janata Party for its failure to deliver on promises made during the 2014 general election and demonetisation of high value currency notes.

    Address a meeting held to launch the SP poll campaign, Mulayam said, “The 2019 general election will decide the destiny of India. The BJP has a lot of fund and you can counter it only by your hard work and sweat. Take a firm resolve to dislodge the BJP in the 2019 polls.”

    Making a fervent appeal to the voters for supporting sitting MP Akshay Yadav, the SP patron said, “Akshay Yadav is a bright young man who will serve your interests well. I have never seen such a huge turnout in a poll meeting in Ferozabad and this will definitely send a good message across UP and also in neighbouring states.”

    Targeting the welfare schemes launched by the BJP government, Akhilesh said, “The BJP claims to have provided crores of LPG   connections to poor people across the state but very few people have the money to refill the empty cylinders.”

    The SP chief reminded the gathering that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had promised to double farmers’ income but there was no let up in the plight of potato growers as they were forced to either go for distress sale or throw the   commodity on highways.

    In the 2009 general election, Akhilesh Yadav successfully contested from two Lok Sabha seats—Kannauj and Firozabad — but vacated the Ferozabad seat later. His wife Dimple Yadav had contested the by-poll but was defeated by Raj Babbar of Congress.

    Cautioning the locals, Akhilesh said, “I had contested election from this seat and Dimple too but some people misled you, so take care this time.”

  • CBI court verdict likely on Dec 21

    A special CBI court will in all likelihood deliver the verdict in the case of  alleged twin fake encounters of notorious criminals Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tusliram Prajapati and rape-murder of Kausar Bi, on December 21.

    Two days after the Prosecution and defence lawyers wrapped up their final arguments, Additional Sessions Judge SJ Sharma — who presides over a special CBI court—noted that he would in all likelihood deliver the judgement on December 21.

    “I need around 14 days. I am sure I will finish it by 21st December. If I don’t complete by December 21st, then I will pass the judgement on 24th December…. But I am very sure that I will be able to complete my work by 21st December,” the Judge said.

    The alleged fake encounters of notorious gangsters Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram and disappearance of the former’s wife Kausar Bi during 2005-06 had resulted in a major political fallout involving the BJP-ruled Gujarat.

    The Prosecution’s case was that Sohrabuddin had connections with Lashkar-e-Taiba and was conspiring to assassinate an “important political leader”,   presumably then chief minister and current Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

    Initially, there were in all 38 accused in the case. Of them, 16 has been discharged — 15 by the special CBI court and one by the Bombay High Court.

    The accused discharged in the case include BJP’s current national President and then Gujarat Minister of State for Home Amit Shah, Rajasthan Home Minister Gulab Chandra Kataria and high-profile Deputy Inspector General DG Vanzara, who headed the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and known for several encounters, Superintendent of Police Dinesh MN and Superintendent of Police Rajkumar Pandian.

    All the IPS officers, arrested for the twin encounters, have been discharged.

    In all, 22 accused were tried during the trial. They included two Deputy Superintendents of Police, Senior Inspectors, Inspector, Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables of Gujarat and Rajasthan.

    During the course of the trial, 210 witnesses were examined, of which 92 turned hostile.

    When the court recorded their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the accused had claimed innocence and said they were arrested because of the rivalry among top police officials and other factors stemming then prevailing political situation in Gujarat.

    On the last day of final arguments in the case, CBI counsel BP Raju admitted that there had been  “lacunae” in the Central agency’s investigation as they took over the case five years after the alleged incidents.

    “The Sohrabuddin encounter took place in 2005, while the Tulsiram encounter happened in 2006. We came in picture in 2010,” Raju told the court.

    So much so that some key witnesses turned hostile during the trial, weakening the CBI’s case.

    On his part, the Judge observed: “I don’t blame CID. I don’t blame CBI. There are statements and witnesses. If they come here and say something else, it’s not your fault. You did your job…..both sides did their job well….your work is over, my work starts now.”

    The CBI, however, maintained that they have enough material to prove that both the encounters were genuine.  However, the defence counsels in the case stated that the Prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

    During the last phase of the trial, a prosecution witness Azam Khan, who too is a criminal under custody, told the court that Sohrabuddin might have had a role in the murder of the then Minister of State for Home Haren Pandya, who he claimed had been killed on March 26, 2003, at the instance of Vanzara.

    It may be recalled that Sohrabuddin, a “dreaded criminal”,  and his wife Kausar Bi were killed in an alleged fake encounter in November 2004 by the Gujarat Police near Gandhinagar in Gujarat. The case assumed considerable public importance owing to the alleged involvement of some of the high-profile politicians and IPS officers in it.

    An aide Tulsiram Prajapati, who was the prime witness to the killings, was arrested by the police but was later killed in an encounter in December 2006 after the law-enforcers claimed he tried to escape from custody.

    Later, the police had named 33 persons as accused in the case. Shah, who was Gujarat Home Minister at the relevant time in 2005, the then Home Minister of Rajasthan and several Gujarat IPS officers, lower police officials from both states besides Andhra Pradesh, were among the accused.

    Several police officers from Gujarat were among the 33 accused in the “fake” encounters of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, Kausar Bi in November 2005 and Prajapati in December 2006.

    The alleged Sohrabuddin fake encounter case was transferred to Mumbai in September 2012 at CBI’s request for fair trial. In 2013, the Supreme Court had clubbed Tulsiram Prajapati’s encounter killing case with that of Sohrabuddin.

    In December, 2014, Special CBI Judge MB Gosavi in Mumbai discharged Shah and 16 other co-accused, citing either lack of sanction for prosecution or insufficient evidence against them.

  • CBI: Between devil & deep sea

    If the landmark Vineet Narain judgment of the Supreme Court in the 1997 Jain hawala case is anything to go by, then it built enough jurisprudence to insulate the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) from political interference and even made it impossible for politicians in the government to remove the CBI director for two years, ensuring he had freedom to carry out time-bound investigations. What happened on the ground after this judgment was that the CBI, which had worked under the Home Ministry earlier, was brought under the direct control of the Prime Minister’s Office. The agency now works under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) which reports directly to the PMO. In that sense, this esteemed office is quite aware of the CBI’s functioning and could access information if it wanted to. This was evident during the coal scam investigations when PMO officials were caught vetting sealed CBI reports meant for the Supreme Court, which forced the judges to describe the apex agency as a “caged parrot.” From my 11-year experience as a journalist and having followed CBI’s involvement in the 2G scam, I must say Prime Minister Narendra Modi couldn’t exert overarching control over it or stem the tide of misuse.

    When Modi came to power in May 2014, the then CBI Director Ranjit Sinha had the most tainted record but was in the saddle serving out his term. He was appointed on the recommendation of the then RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav. Such was his reputation that the Patna High Court even disqualified him from the fodder scam probe in the mid-1990s. Frankly, till his retirement in December 2014, Modi took no action against Ranjit Sinha, who even appointed an IRS officer as DIG in the CBI’s anti-corruption wing in Delhi during the power transition in May 2014. This officer was caught for torturing a civil servant working in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for taking a bribe and forcing him and his entire family to commit suicide. The concerned IRS officer, Sanjiv Gautam, was then a private Secretary to a powerful UPA Minister and it is a million dollar question how Sinha took him as DIG in the CBI just days before Modi became the Prime Minister. But then the Indian bureaucracy is known to play smart with appointments during power transitions, keeping them absolutely legitimate and within rules.

    Sinha was even called out by Supreme Court’s 2G and coal scam benches for meeting many of the accused, including corporates, at his home and was under the scanner of a court-dictated probe. This was a golden chance for Modi to act, cleanse the country’s top probe agency once and for all and get a transparent process going. But the Prime Minister remained silent, one which unfortunately amounted to being a safe passage for Sinha. Why? None has an answer.

    The next CBI Director was selected in December 2014, as per the Lokpal Act, by a high-powered committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha. The Prime Minister selected Ranjit Sinha’s protégé Anil Sinha as per existing seniority norms, a decision agreed to by the other members on the panel. Till December 2016, Anil Sinha dragged his feet on major corruption scandals like Aircel-Maxis, AgustaWestland, Robert Vadra’s land acquisitions and the National Herald-related cases, which were major campaign planks of the BJP when it was in the Opposition.

    His tenure was marked by controversial raids at two sitting Chief Ministers’ offices, namely Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kerjiwal and Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Vir Bhadra Singh. In both instances, the Prime Minister was not in Delhi, travelling abroad during one and addressing naval officers on a warship in the high seas during the other. Had the CBI Director got clearance from the Prime Minister to conduct the raid in sitting Chief Ministers’ offices? Or did someone in the Cabinet direct him to do so once the Prime Minister was out of reach?

    Anil Sinha even shunted a CBI Joint Director Ashok Tewari for summoning former Finance Minister P Chidambaram in December 2014 with regard to the Aircel-Maxis scam. How can an officer be shunted out for doing his duty? Have we then become the mythical “deep state?” That is the only answer.

    In fact, proof that Modi was aware of the CBI’s wrongdoings lies in the fact that he himself brought Gujarat cadre IPS officers, namely Rakesh Asthana, YC Modi and AK Sharma.

    Even Enforcement Directorate’s young officer Rajeshwar Singh was hounded by the system for raiding Chidambaram’s home in December 2015 and exposing his family’s assets in 14 countries and 21 foreign bank accounts. One would have expected Ashok Tewari and Rajeshwar Singh to be heroes in the Modi regime for taking bold action against his political rival Chidambaram. But the underbelly of Lutyens’ Delhi is difficult to grasp.

    I must bring out two incidents of CBI’s sheer lethargy and tardiness for political “give and take.” The first concerns a trial court judge overseeing the coal scam cases, Bharat Prashar, who summoned former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, holding him responsible for allocation of coal mines. The Congress even conducted a protest march against this. Meanwhile, Singh approached a non-relevant Supreme Court Bench and obtained a stay on the summons when he should have ideally sought redress in the Coal Scam Bench. It was CBI’s duty to tell the court about this anomaly. However, it kept quiet and the trial court convicted poor Harish Chandra Gupta, then Coal Secretary, who was also not inclined to reveal the truth and became an approver. The endgame? Both the IAS lobby and politicians shed crocodile tears for a while, leading to recasting of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI was rendered toothless. Again. The second case that emasculated the CBI further was the Delhi High Court staying the prosecution of Sonia Gandhi’s former private secretary Vincent George in January 2015. Till date, the CBI has not challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, though the Delhi High Court has terminated the magistrate son of the concerned High Court judge, who was caught for possessing unaccounted cash.

    Now let us come to the current controversy. After the exit of Anil Sinha, Modi used his might, bypassed the next senior candidate RK Dutta and appointed trusted lieutenant Rakesh Asthana as CBI’s Acting Director in December 2016. Asthana was too junior to hold the post of CBI chief and later, the

    Prime Minister himself selected non-controversial Delhi Police Commissioner Alok Verma as the new Director in January 2017. He had selected him as Delhi Police Commissioner, too, in 2015.

    However, post the appointments Modi perhaps could not sense the duel that had started between his trusted officers in the CBI. Rakesh Asthana, YC Modi and AK Sharma had already started bickering with each other and PMO officials reportedly took sides in this mud-slinging instead of sorting out issues. Meanwhile YC Modi was shunted out to the National Investigative Agency (NIA). The tussle continued as Asthana was not at all in a mood to obey the new CBI Director, who decided to take on Asthana by fixing the latter’s culpability in the Sterling Diary bribes. This time, Central Vigilance Commissioner KV Chowdhary looked the other way. And the PMO, in an unprecedented manner, issued a midnight order approving the promotion of Rakesh Asthana as Special Director in October 2017. This was the real breaking point between the CBI Director and his real superior, the Prime Minister. Now that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, let us wait for its verdict.

    Will the Supreme Court deliver the judgment before the retirement of Alok Verma on February 2? If justice is delayed, then it would give credence to what is generally assumed, that bigwigs protect each other and no matter what the regime, the bureaucracy’s shenanigans can always hold a system hostage to its priorities and ego. There is a famous Latin judicial term, “Fiat justitia ruat caelum, which means “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

  • CBI vs CBI: Delhi HC allows Alok Verma to inspect case file relating to Rakesh Asthana

    CBI Director Alok Verma and Joint Director A K Sharma were on Wednesday allowed by the Delhi High Court to inspect in the CVC’s office the case file relating to FIR against the agency’s Special Director Rakesh Asthana. Verma was asked by Justice Najmi Waziri to go to Central Vigilance Commission’s office on Thursday after his counsel said there are allegations of mala fide against him in Asthana’s petition. He also allowed Sharma to go to the CVC’s office on Friday for inspecting the files.

    Regarding proceedings against Asthana, who has sought quashing of an FIR against him in a bribery case, the court extended till December 7 its order directing the CBI to maintain status quo.

    The court was hearing separate pleas of Asthana, Kumar and middleman Manoj Prasad seeking quashing of the FIR against them.

    In the previous hearing, the counsel for Sharma said he had incriminating evidence against Asthana and would place it before the court in a sealed cover, to which the court had asked him to file it before the CBI. The probe agency will then place the documents before it.

  • Aircel-Maxis case: CBI informs Delhi court it has procured sanction to prosecute Chidambaram

    The CBI Monday informed a Delhi court that it has procured the requisite sanction from the authorities concerned to prosecute former Union minister P Chidambaram in the Aircel-Maxis case.

    The court however extended till December 18 the protection granted to Chidambaram and his son Karti from arrest after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it needed two weeks to get sanction against other accused in the case.

    The CBI is probing alleged irregularities in grant of FIPB approval in Aircel-Maxis deal, while the ED is probing alleged money-laundering related to the deal.

  • “CBI Top 2 Like Caesar’s Wife, Must Be Beyond Suspicion”: Arun Jaitley

    The Supreme Court order for a time-bound inquiry against exiled CBI chief Alok Verma was an “extremely positive development”, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley today said, adding that it was in the best interest of the country that the truth comes out. “All officers of the CBI, particularly the top two, are like Caesar’s wife and must be beyond suspicion,” Mr Jaitley said, justifying the government’s move to send Mr Verma and his deputy Rakesh Asthana on leave after they accused each other of corruption in an unprecedented public feud.

    “In order to ensure fairness, the Supreme Court has appointed a retired judge to oversee the investigation,” Mr Jaitley said, adding that the government is “only interested in maintaining professionalism, the image and the institutional integrity of the CBI.”

    He said that recent developments have “eroded the reputation of the CBI” and the government’s move came in “larger national interest”.

    “The Supreme Court’s direction setting a two-week time frame would further strengthen the fairness criteria of the investigations…and the appointment of a retired judge would ensure a fair inquiry,” the Finance Minister said.

    The expression ‘Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion’ – drawn from a 16th-century Shakespearean drama – is used to imply that people in high positions must have impeccable integrity.

    Mr Jaitley’s remarks came as opposition parties led by Congress President Rahul Gandhi protested outside the CBI headquarters in Delhi against the government’s move and what it called attempts to control and undermine the investigating agency. Mr Gandhi and other leaders also walked into a police station and turned themselves in.

    The Congress said the Modi government’s “sinister attempt” to capture the CBI through “lackeys” has fallen flat after the Supreme Court’s order that also barred interim director M Nageswar Rao from taking any major policy decision.

    “Truth prevails in Supreme Court. Modi Government’s sinister attempt to capture CBI through lackeys falls flat. A slap in face of tyrants who wanted to pin the last nail in CBI’s independence. CVC can’t act as Modi Government’s pawn but would be supervised by a SC judge to act fairly,” Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said on Twitter.

  • Special CBI Director Asthana moves HC on FIR against him in bribery case

    Special CBI Director Rakesh Asthana Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court against the lodging of an FIR against him in a bribery case.

    Asthana has sought the high court’s direction that no coercive action be taken against him.

    His petition was mentioned before Chief Justice Rajendra Menon, who allocated the matter to an appropriate bench that will hear it in the post-lunch session.

    The CBI had yesterday arrested its DSP Devender Kumar in connection with bribery allegations involving the investigative agency’s second-in-command, Asthana.

    Kumar, earlier the investigating officer in a case involving meat exporter Moin Qureshi, was arrested yesterday by the CBI on the allegations of forgery in recording the statement of businessman Sathish Sana, who had alleged to have paid bribe to get relief in the case.

    In his statement, Sana had purportedly said that he had in June this year discussed his case with Telugu Desam Party’s Rajya Sabha member C M Ramesh who, after speaking to the CBI Director, had assured him that he would not be summoned again.

    “From June onwards, I was not called by the CBI. I was under the impression that investigation against me is complete,” he is believed to have said.

    The CBI has now alleged that Kumar had fabricated this statement as an “afterthought…To corroborate the baseless allegations made by Asthana against CBI Director Alok Verma to the CVC (Central Vigilance Commissioner)”.

    They said the agency was also looking into the alleged role of other members of the special investigation team headed by Asthana.

    Asthana, who was booked by the agency on bribery charges in an unprecedented action, had complained against Verma on August 24, 2018.