Bombay HC extends interim protection for Sameer Wankhede by 2 weeks; made a 'scapegoat', he says

MUMBAI: Sameer Wankhede, former zonal director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai hit out at the Bureau saying it is one of the rarest case of high handedness of the agencies to make him a "scapegoat" of the Cordelia Cruise case and said the Special Enquiry Team (SET) sought to give a clean chit to Aryan Khan, son of actor Shahrukh Khan, by "supressing" relevant information and evidences.
In rejoinder before the Bombay high court, he also said the SET "twisted the facts" and levelled false allegations to "jeopardise character of honest officials."
Wankhede’s rejoinder to the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) reply, said its assertion that a May 11 written complaint by the superintendent of vigilance, NCB disclosed cognisable offence corruption and extortion was a “complete distortion of facts.’’
Wankhede, presently an IRS officer, has sought quashing of a first information report (FIR) filed by CBI in an alleged case of Rs 25 crore bribery demand from Khan’s family related to the Cordelia cruise ship drug bust. The NCB after arresting Aryan, had dropped all charges against him.
Wankhede stated that the intelligence information report--I- note—transcription of confidential information received by an officer--,referred by SET, was not the one based on which the NCB zonal unit had conducted the Cordelia cruise ship raid on October 2, 2021.
Wankhede denied allegations that he had “changed the I-Note’’ to target certain individuals as being “absolutely ill founded’’ and the finding, by SET, was made “merely to harass honest officers of NCB.’’ The note he said contained ten names including Aryan Khan and some unknown persons, adding that “a list of 27 names (not containing Aryan Khan’s name) is falsely sought to be deemed as the I-Note by SET.’’ The longer list bears a time stamp of 4.45 pm while the original one was produced at 7.30 am on October 2, 2021, said the rejoinder.
Wankhede said, “The entire endevour of the SET" was to “create many doubts regarding the investigation of the Cordelia Cruise case to meet their ultimate motive of giving Aryan Khan a clean chit and be able to justify the same.’’
Wankhede also denied allegations against him of “no documentation of phone seizure’’ and said SET is making a “frivolous observation to justify’’ its clean chit to Aryan Khan. His rejoinder termed it “nothing but a figment of imagination of SET chairman…’’ and said procedures were followed with Khan voluntarily handing over his phone for probe.
Regarding a pancha (independent witness) –now co-accused—clicking a photograph of Aryan Khan, Wankhede said it was taken without consent of any NCB officer and was “humanly impossible for the ZD to keep an eye on actions of panchas.’’
Wankhede dealt with allegations of his foreign trips with family and set out how his family paid for them and his wife had paid for the Rolex watch adding allegations are “thrusted’’ on him to “humiliate” and “create a bad public image.’’
On Thursday, his plea came up for hearing and the HC bench headed by Justice Ajay Gadkari extended by two weeks, an interim protection granted to Wankhede earlier by its vacation bench, against any coercive steps or arrest by the CBI. It posted the matter for hearing senior counsel Aabad Ponda—for Wankhede—and Kuldeep Patil for CBI, on June 23, at 2.30 pm as it requires a detailed hearing.
His rejoinder said the very enquiry by SET—set up on October 25, 2021--, was in violation of section 17A (need of a prior sanction) of the PC Act which bars police officers from conducting it when allegations are against a public servant and hence alleged prior sanction dated May 11, 2023 against him is bad in law.
Wankhede denied all allegations against him and sought quashing of FIR. The CBI has sought recall of interim protection given by the HC in May to Wankhede and dismissal of his quashing plea against its FIR saying it was a serious case and probe is at an initial stage.
His rejoinder said basic ingredients to invoke extortion under section 388 of Indian Penal Code are not made out as there is no such allegation by any “victim’’ with neither any statement or written complaint by any aggrieved person. Nor can it be a case of ‘undue advantage’ by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act as alleged in the complaint as “the allegations are based on the SET report which is biased and prepared to wreak vengeance due to his personal vendetta against me by his own superior…’’ who had given “instructions’’ on conducting the Cordelia case said Wankhede.
Besides the SET report, the agencies admit, was for administrative purposes only, to initiate disciplinary action into complaints of corruption and conduct and hence there was “no occasion’’ for it to have been forwarded to CBI to initiate action.
Wankhede said the “vigour and enthusiasm’’ with which NCB is contesting his plea, “smacks of malafide and personal vendetta’’ by some of its officials.