Cruise drug bust bribery case: Sam D’Souza withdraws plea against CBI FIR as Bombay HC refuses interim relief

The bench asked D’Souza why he did not file an anticipatory bail application before a competent court. It also considered the CBI’s contention that while Wankhede is a public servant and his case was on a different footing as he had challenged the sanction or approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act, D’Souza was a private citizen.

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

D’Souza was also named as an accused in the CBI FIR along with Wankhede, Gosavi, then NCB superintendent Vishwa Vijay Singh and then intelligence officer of NCB Mumbai zonal unit Ashish Ranjan. Ranjan has approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief in the case.

On May 22, a vacation bench of the high court while hearing Wankhede’s plea seeking to quash the FIR, extended till June 8 the interim protection from coercive action to the former NCB zonal director in the bribery case, subject to him following specific conditions including restrictions on giving statements to media.

On Friday, advocate Sandeep Karnik, representing D’Souza, sought interim protection from arrest on parity with interim relief granted to Wankhede. Karnik said that the agency on May 23 served summons to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on May 24.

“They have nothing against my client and there is nothing in the FIR except a line claiming that he was accused of ‘aiding Gosavi’. Without protection from arrest, there is a fear they will arrest him. My client will appear before the agency and he is ready to cooperate and can give an undertaking similar to Wankhede. He is a private citizen. They have seized his mobile and are interrogating Wankhede who is granted interim protection,” Karnik argued.

“This court is seized of the matter for other accused (Wankhede) and my client is co-accused and seeking relief on parity. Why treat him differently?” he added.

“You are riding on his (Wankhede) back. Why not file anticipatory bail application? He was a public servant. You are in a different situation. The impression we had when the matter was circulated was that you are one of the officers,” the bench responded.

Advocate Kuldeep Patil, representing the CBI, opposed the plea and submitted that Wankhede is a public servant and he had filed a petition against sanction under section 17A of PC Act. But he (D’Souza) is a private citizen and the accusations of extortion are very serious. Every accused in the case should be treated differently as their plea was on different footings.”

The court said that it was not inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. “We are refusing interim relief. If you want to simply withdraw the petition, go ahead. We are not granting any protection.” Thereafter D’Souza’s lawyer sought to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed and kept all contentions by the petitioner open.