The Bombay High Court expressed displeasure over how the CBI responded to the queries about the need for Wankhede’s arrest. Justices Ajey S. Gadkari and Shivkumar G. Dige were sitting as a division bench to hear Wankhede’s appeal contesting the CBI FIR.
Insisting that the charges against the petitioner are of a “serious and sensitive nature, and the investigation was in its initial and crucial stage,” CBI moved to revoke Wankhede’s first May 19 permission for temporary protection from coercive action. The court then established limitations, including ‘no press statements’ by Wankhede in the case, and on May 22 extended interim protection to him until June 8. The court extended Wankhede’s temporary protection until June 23 on June 8.
According to CBI, it filed the FIR based on a written complaint sent on May 11 by the superintendent (vigilance) of NCB, along with the appropriate authorization for filing a complaint under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public employee. The complaint was founded on a SET investigation by NCB.
However, Wankhede revised his petition and claimed that “central agencies do not have a lawful prior sanction as required” by Section 17A of the Act because the sanction was obtained from the Home Ministry when Wankhede was working for the Finance Ministry.
The bench stated that once the CBI filed a notice under section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), it revealed there was no intention to arrest him after Advocate Kuldeep Patil for the CBI requested a vacation of temporary protection. Then, it requested that the agency notify it if the petitioner was going to be arrested so that it may provide him with a 48-hour notice so that he might seek legal redress.
The CBI attorney made the case that the petitioner might go to sessions court and ask for pre-arrest bail. “You give notice that you will give 48 hours before you arrest him,” the bench retorted. He is being sent to the session court. You work for a reputable investigation team. Why are you hiding and seeking? The court asked, “Why are you hesitating to announce whether you want to arrest him or not?
The CBI attorney, however, asserted that although the central agency does not currently wish to arrest Wankhede, the court should not place restrictions on it because interim protection was granted in the case without objection.
The court then asked the CBI for a case diary of the investigation to see if the case has progressed to the point of an arrest. Patil asserted that the case diary will be presented by Tuesday, June 27, and contended that even though such a stage may not have been reached, the court shouldn’t have expressed mistrust in the agency.
“Serious questions are being raised by your insistence that you do not speak publicly about your desire not to have him arrested. How can we be sure you are keeping the diary accurately? The bench stated, “You have three days to present it.
