Cordelia cruise bribery case: CAT says Gyaneshwar Singh couldn’t have headed SET, CBI FIR unsustainable, Sameer Wankhede tells HC

Wankhede had told the bench that the said SET sought to give a clean chit to actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan by “suppressing material information and evidence in violation of legal provisions”.

The CBI FIR pertains to the Rs 25-crore bribe allegedly demanded by Wankhede and others from Aryan Khan and others arrested in the 2021 Cordelia drug bust case.

A division bench of Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Rajesh S Patil, which was hearing Wankhede’s plea against the CBI FIR, granted him liberty to place CAT’s order on record through an additional affidavit, and posted hearing in the plea to Wednesday, September 6.

On August 21, the HC had extended the interim protection from arrest to Wankhede till September 7.

The principal bench of CAT, Chairman Justice Ranjit More and member Justice Anand Mathur, on August 21 passed an order on the original application by Wankhede seeking quashing of the June 2022 report by SET. Wankhede had claimed that Singh in his capacity as then in-charge DDG of South-West Region of NCB, actively supervised the investigation in the Cordelia case.

The Tribunal perused the WhatsApp chat between Wankhede and Singh, and observed that Singh was in touch with applicant Wankhede from October 3–2021 to October 12–2021.

“Through this WhatsApp chat, respondent Singh not only supervised and instructed the applicant in respect of the probe under the said crime, but also gave the plan of action to him,” the Tribunal observed.

The CAT observed, “Respondent Singh, in our opinion, being actively involved in the probe could not have been the part of SET, which was constituted to hold an enquiry for the alleged procedural lapses on the part of officials during the seizure on Cordelia, and follow up action in connection with the aforesaid crime.”

However, the Tribunal took note of arguments by the Centre, NCB and Singh that the impugned SET report was a “preliminary” report, and respondents have to take an independent decision regarding action to be taken against the applicant.

“We are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved by directing respondents to grant personal hearing to the applicant before initiating any action against him, on the basis of the impugned SET report, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to him by passing a reasoned and speaking order,” the CAT order noted.

Referring to the CAT order, Wankhede in his additional affidavit stated, “It is clear that the SET was not only wrongfully constituted, but its findings thereof were unsustainable. Further, the entire CBI FIR being based on the said findings is unsustainable, especially when the said SET itself has been held to be wrongfully constituted.”