Antilia Bomb scare case: Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking probe against Parambir Singh

The Bombay High Court last week dismissed a petition seeking probe against former Mumbai Police Commissioner, Parambir Singh in relation to the infamous Antilia Bomb scare case and also the murder case of businessman Mansukh Hiren [Parshuram Sharma vs State of Maharashtra]..A division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Kamal Khata noted that the material relied upon by the petitioner was mere "hearsay evidence.""The material do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence nor do it show that there is any reasonable probability of commission of cognizable offence at the hands of former Commissioner of Police. Unless and until such material is available on record and it is within the own knowledge of the person seeking registration of a crime, it cannot be said that any more investigation by police is warranted and that a person seeking such investigation in the crime has locus in the matter," the bench observed in its order passed on March 23. .The bench was seized of a petition filed by one Parshuram Sharma seeking directions to the State Police to investigate into the alleged role played by Singh, in the Antilia Bomb scare case and also the murder case of Mansukh Hiren. .Having considered the contentions, the Court noted that in an order passed on January 23, in the bail plea of one of the accused Pradeep Sharma, a coordinate bench had made some observations regarding ₹5 lakh being paid to one Ishaan Sinha, a cyber expert.The Court, however, said that the same was not sufficient to order a probe against Singh."In fact, the court has only asked a question as to why a huge payment was made to one Ishaan Sinha, Cyber Expert and further question was asked as to what was the interest of the Commissioner of Police. But, beyond asking these questions, the court had said nothing," the Court said. .Now, if the petitioner seeks to carry forward this suspicion into a reasonable possibility of the former Commissioner of Police having been involved in the present crime, the petitioner would have to show some more circumstances which converts his suspicion into a reasonable probability of the former top cop having indulged in some or other criminal activity, the Court opined. "It is only that informant who would have a locus to file FIR with police station, in terms of section 154 of CrPC, who has credible information about commission of cognizable offence. Criminal law can be set into motion only after the complaint made to police discloses commission of cognizable offence in terms of section 154 of CrPC. All these aspects necessary for initiation of investigation into a cognizable crime are absent in this case," the bench observed. With these observations, the bench dismissed the petition. .Advocates NS Ghanekar and Kuldip S Kahalekar appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Sandesh Patil and Chintan Shah represented the NIA.Additional Public Prosecutor YM Nakhwa represented the State..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.