A day after CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma overturned the transfers of officers, ordered while he had been sent on leave, Deputy Superintendent of Police Devender Kumar moved the Delhi High Court on Thursday seeking a court direction to restrain those officers from dealing with the bribery FIR lodged against him and Special Director Rakesh Asthana.
Later on Thursday, Mr. Verma was removed as the CBI Director, a day after the Supreme Court order restored his position.
Mr. Kumar’s plea is likely to be listed for hearing on Friday. The court had on December 20 already reserved its verdict on various petitions of Mr. Asthana, Mr. Kumar and alleged middleman Manoj Prasad seeking to quash the bribery FIR lodged against them.
The court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on the pleas seeking quashing of the FIR on Friday.
Within a few hours of resuming office as CBI Director, Mr. Verma had passed fresh orders, recalling earlier orders of transfer of Deputy Inspector General Manish Kumar Sinha, Superintendent of Police S.S. Gurm and Deputy Superintendent of Police A.K. Bassi.
‘Violation of order’
This was a clear violation of the order of the Supreme Court, Mr. Kumar asserted in his plea. “If the [reinstated] team is allowed to continue, the petitioner is apprehensive that they may indulge in destroying of evidence that established the illegal seizure and illegal surveillances.”
Mr. Kumar urged the High Court, before making a final decision, to direct the CBI to produce the October 4, 2018, handwritten complaint made by complainant Satish Babu Sana, a Hyderabad-based businessman and the pre-registration file maintained in the FIR.
“The petitioner has further come to know that in the said written complaint, while allegations of harassment were made, the name of the petitioner did not figure and that the petitioner was not accused of any wrongdoing in the said complaint by Mr. Sana,” he submitted.
Mr. Kumar said the FIR was lodged on October 15, 2018, on the basis of a typed statement on that date, which was allegedly signed by Mr. Sana.
The High Court had in an interim order directed the CBI to maintain status quo regarding proceedings against Mr. Asthana till further orders.
Previously, Mr. Gurm, who had registered the FIR on October 15, had moved a plea alleging that Mr. Asthana was misrepresenting facts before the high court.
Mr. Verma had argued that the FIR against Mr. Asthana was registered based on “cogent material disclosing cognisable offences”.
In a written affidavit, he had claimed that the view of Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P.S. Narasimha was sought by the CBI on the need for prior government approval to lodge an FIR against public servants facing allegations of corruption and that the senior law officer had opined that it was not required.
