New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday extended the interim protection from arrest to CBI special director Rakesh Asthana till November 14 as the agency said the “FIR contents need thorough investigation” and “several incriminating documents have been unearthed”.
Justice Najmi Waziri of the Delhi HC received the CBI’s reply after the agency was asked whether it had “come to a standstill” for the constant delay in filing a reply in the case.
Asthana, who had approached the HC seeking to quash the FIR against him that had resulted in him being stripped of his responsibilities, had stated that the FIR was not just.
However, the CBI, through Superintendent of Police Satish Dagar, informed the court that the statement of Sathish Babu Sana under Section 164 of CrPC had resulted in the instant FIR. Sana is the “whistleblower” whose complaint about corruption and extortion against officials of the CBI led to an FIR against Asthana.
“Prior to the complaint dated October 15 made by Sathish Babu Sana, he has also made a statement under Section 164 of CrPC on October 4 in which similar facts were disclosed by him, thus giving credence to this version and ultimately resulting in the registration of FIR,” reads the CBI reply.
However, the CBI has noted that progress has been made in the case and "thorough investigation is required”. “Investigation is at a nascent stage. It may not be in the interest of the investigation to disclose various aspects, unearth events in the affidavit, while the case diary discloses the progress of the investigation," the CBI has replied.
Justice Waziri has now posted the case for hearing on November 14 when Asthana is expected to file a rejoinder to the CBI reply.
The hearing in courtroom number 31 also witnessed the counsel for senior police official SS Gurum file an intervention application, as he was the "who had registered the FIR in the case”.
“I am the officer who registered the FIR. I have some crucial evidence which will be of material help to the case. My application is for both the sides," submitted the counsel for Gurum.
However, Amarendra Sharan, counsel for Asthana, vehemently argued that Gurum did not have "locus in the matter" and "the plea being filed by Gurum was not maintainable”.
CBI has also stated in the reply that during the process of investigation, several "incriminating documents" were received.
"It is submitted that several incriminating documents and role of several persons is under investigation. The CBI is handicapped of certain files, documents and other material since the same is under scrutiny of the Central Vigilance Commission," said the agency’s reply.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday had ordered the police to provide protection to Hyderabad-based Sana, who had alleged threat to his life.
In his application, Sana said he had written to Justice Patnaik “stating his readiness and willingness to give statements under his supervision”. His questioning under the supervision of Justice Patnaik would only serve the interests of justice, he said.
But Chief Justice Gogoi strongly objected to involving Justice Patnaik on behalf of Sana and rejected the latter’s plea.
Comments
0 comment