Aryan Khan bribery case: Bombay HC directs Sameer Wankhede to not publish material regarding petition, extends protection from arrest

The court also asked Wankhede to give an undertaking in this regard and said he should be present before the investigation agency as and when called for by the concerned officer.

Wankhede was asked to file an undertaking Monday. If these conditions are met, then the arrest would not take place, the court said. The court also sought the CBI’s affidavit in reply to Wankhede’s plea by June 3.

The CBI FIR pertained to the alleged demand of a bribe of Rs 25 crore by Wankhede and others from family members of those arrested in the 2021 Cordelia cruise ship drug-bust case, including actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan.

A bench of Justices Abhay Ahuja and M M Sathaye Monday questioned Wankhede’s revelation of screenshots of alleged text messages with Shah Rukh Khan attached in his petition, relying on which he said the same “nowhere” showed that he made an extortion demand.

Wankhede had also relied on a 10-minute phone recording to claim that a draft complaint prepared by the NCB was changed to benefit Aryan Khan and some other suspects in the Cordelia case. Wankhede appeared before the central agency on Saturday and Sunday.

After advocate Kuldeep Patil for the CBI referred to private chats shared by the petitioner, the bench questioned the need for circulating the same when the matter was subjudice. In response, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Wankhede, submitted that his client only circulated the content in the petition and nothing beyond that.

Patil argued, “These chats relate to the time when Wankhede was commanding the investigation. The father was concerned with the life and liberty of his son, who was in custody. A request made by the father, whose young boy was in custody, is being used as a character certificate by the applicant.”

“When you have subjected yourself to this court, why did you go to the media?” the bench asked.

Ponda, on behalf of Wankhede, responded, “I have not gone to the media. I am sorry. I did not share. It is limited to the petition. What is beyond the petition is not in the media. I have not circulated any chats. The chats had been annexed in the petition because of the allegations against me.”

Patil for the CBI opposed Wankhede’s plea for continuation of interim protection and said that the May 19 order would come in the way of any action that the CBI would want to take under section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and should not be continued indefinitely.

He argued that there cannot be “blanket protection” granted to the petitioner, and as the probe is going on, Patil also argued that the petitioner should not be allowed to transmit any messages to the media or to any other person with respect to the subject matter of the FIR.

Wankhede submitted that the FIR was registered on May 11, pursuant to sanction which has been granted under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, on the same day.

He submitted that the inquiry in the present case is relatable to the offence of the year 2021, and as such, the prescribed period of four months under section 17A of the PC Act has already lapsed. Wankhede added that as the NCB’s Special Enquiry Team (SET) filed its report on October 25, 2021, the bar under section 17A of the Act would still apply.

However, advocate Manisha Jagtap, representing the NCB’s SET, submitted an affidavit by the agency and stated that approval under section 17A of PC Act for internal probe was taken prior to the FIR in October 2021 itself; therefore the agency had not overreached the bar under the law. The CBI adopted the NCB’s reply related to bar under section 17A of the PC Act.