|
A Rouse Avenue Court on Thursday declined the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea for police custody of 2012-batch Haryana cadre IPS officer Deepak Gahlawat in an alleged bribery case linked to a fake medicine racket and remanded him to judicial custody till July 16.
Special Judge Sushant Changotra, after hearing detailed arguments from both sides, rejected the CBI's request seeking four more days of police custody and noted that the agency had not been able to clearly establish contradictory statements warranting further custodial interrogation. The accused was produced before the court after one day of CBI custody. The CBI had sought additional custodial remand in connection with alleged transactions amounting to 1.5 crore from one Parvesh Dhull over a year ago, and to interrogate the accused to identify other unknown suspects and alleged involvement of public servants in the case. The agency also alleged that Gahlawat demanded 3 crore for allegedly using his influence to secure relief for accused persons in a fake medicine racket case being investigated by the CBI. It argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to "unearth the larger conspiracy", confront the accused with co-accused persons, and probe unexplained financial transactions. During the hearing, the prosecution also referred to alleged conversations between Gahlawat and co-accused Prabhat Kapoor dated May 12, as well as transactions of 2,000 and 48,000 from the account of Shivaaye Luxury Cars, claiming these reflected a pattern of financial dealings forming part of the alleged modus operandi. The CBI further disputed the defence claim that certain payments were linked to the sale of a vehicle registered in Gahlawat's name, stating that ownership had not been transferred. It also pointed to firms allegedly linked to family members of the accused, arguing that the source of funds remained unexplained. Opposing the remand plea, defence counsels Anurag Nasiar alongwith Paripoorn Singh submitted that the agency was conflating unrelated financial transactions with the alleged bribery allegations and had failed to point out any contradictory statement requiring custodial interrogation. The defence also maintained that prior financial dealings with co-accused Prabhat Kapoor were not disputed, including the alleged 2,000 and 48,000 transactions. It further argued that the alleged meeting of May 14 pertained to influencing the CBI investigation involving businessman N. Raja and that there was no inconsistency in the accused's statements. The defence also contended that issues relating to alleged unexplained assets were distinct from the bribery allegations, and that the alleged advance bribe had already been recovered from other accused persons. During the proceedings, the Special Judge repeatedly questioned the prosecution on the necessity of further custody, asking it to specify the contradictory statements relied upon. The court also observed that the case diary did not contain any entry dated May 14 and remarked, "There is no entry on 14 May, and you are relying upon a document which doesn't have anything from that entry." The court further questioned whether any suspicious financial transactions had been unearthed after the May 14 meeting, to which the prosecution replied in the negative. While opposing the defence, the CBI maintained that custodial interrogation was required to confront the accused with co-accused Parvesh and Prabhat Kapoor and cited freezing of ten bank accounts as part of its ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing that custody was necessary at the initial stage to unearth the larger conspiracy. The defence, however, argued that the agency itself appeared unclear on whether the case pertained to alleged influence over CBI officials or unexplained financial transactions, contending that both aspects could not be merged to justify continued custody. At one point, the court questioned the scope of the investigation, observing, "Do you want this to be a never-ending process?" The judge further remarked, "You can do a preliminary investigation in other cases and register separate FIRs." The court accordingly declined the CBI's custody plea and remanded Gahlawat to judicial custody till July 16. (ANI)
|
