[Anil Deshmukh case] Maharashtra government plea for recalling probe from CBI not bonafide: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday made some adverse observations against the Maharashtra government in the case filed by the State in relation to the First Information Report (FIR) registered against former Home Minister Anil Deshmukh [State of Maharashtra v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.]..The Bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and SV Kotwal said that the manner in which Maharashtra government conducted itself in the matter did not instill confidence about the bonafides of the petition. "Considering the manner in which the petitioner (State) has conducted itself in relation to this FIR (Deshmukh FIR) and the way in which the petition is presented assuming locus, we are not satisfied that the prayer of the Petitioner for recalling investigation from the Respondent CBI to itself is bonafide," the judgment said."We may hasten to add here that this is not an indictment of the State of Maharashtra in general, but our conclusions are in respect of its conduct as a party in this litigation, answering a point in issue in this petition" the Bench clarified in its 74-page verdict.The verdict came on a plea filed by the State challenging summons issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to Chief Secretary Sitaram Kunte and State Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Pandey in connection with Deshmukh FIR.The State had also sought transfer of the probe to a special investigation team (SIT) from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)..The Bench while dismissing the plea opined that this was the third instance in which the State was a party to a litigation pertaining to the investigation being conducted against Deshmukh. The State had earlier challenged certain unnumbered paragraphs of the FIR, which had been dismissed by the High Court. CBI had then approached the High Court raising grievance that State was not handing over documents pertaining to the investigation. .The Bench observed that from the documents and judicial orders submitted by CBI, it appeared the State did not want the aspect of transfers and postings of police officers to be investigated by the central agency. The Bench noted that Subodh Jaiswal had already become the Director of CBI by then. Hence, it could have been argued, as has been argued in the present petition, that CBI is not competent to investigate this aspect. "If not in the High Court, at least when the SLP was filed, the Petitioner could have taken this ground before the Supreme Court, but it was not taken," the Bench remarked. The Court took note of this conduct of the State in context of CBI's arguments that sole intention of State was to create hurdles in the investigation. "We find merit in the charge of CBI that this petition is nothing but an extension of the stand of Petitioner to scuttle investigation concerning the ex-home minister, displayed right from the inception as observed by this court in earlier orders referred above," the order stated..Refuting another contention of State that having CBI summon their highest officers was demoralising for the police force, the Court noted that the entire investigation was not about general transfers and postings of the police officers but on the conduct expressly attributed to former Home Minister.With this position established, the Court was not convinced why the State filed the petition on behalf of its officers summoned by CBI invoking the principle of parens patriae. "If there is any truth that the transfers have taken place through illegal means, it would be in the State's interest that the same is ascertained," the court opined. .[Read judgment]