NCB special enquiry team gave clean chit to Aryan Khan by suppressing facts, evidence: Wankhede to HC

He said that the I-note relied on by the zonal unit has only 10 names while the SET falsely projected that the list of 27 names was the original I-note. Wankhede said the SET had wrongly claimed that at a later stage, the note was modified to have only 10 names of suspects and the name of actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan and one Arbaaz Merchant was added to the modified note.

“The SET has also challenged the judicial process by not filing an investigation report against Aryan Khan as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) either in the body of a chargesheet or a closure report,” Wankhede claimed.

Wankhede in his rejoinder affidavit to the CBI’s reply to his plea against the bribery case also denied allegations that foreign trips with his family and expensive accessories, including watches, being enjoyed by him were due to gratification received for not registering cases of drug abuse.

Wankhede also relied on a 10-minute phone recording to claim that a draft complaint prepared by the NCB’s legal advisor was changed to benefit Aryan Khan and some other suspects in the Cordelia drug bust case.

Meanwhile, the court on Thursday continued for two weeks the interim protection from coercive action granted to Wankhede. After Wankhede’s lawyer sought time to amend the petition, a division bench of Justice A S Gadkari and Justice S G Dige posted the further hearing to June 23.

The 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.

Maintaining that the allegations against the petitioner are of a “serious and sensitive nature and the investigation was in its initial and crucial stage”, the CBI in its affidavit in reply sought to recall the interim protection from coercive action to Wankhede, which was granted first on May 19. Thereafter, on May 22, the court continued interim protection to Wankhede till June 8 by laying down conditions, including no press statements by Wankhede regarding the case.

The CBI said it had registered the FIR on the basis of a written complaint forwarded by the superintendent (vigilance) of the NCB on May 11 along with approval required for initiating action under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant.

The basis of the written complaint was an inquiry conducted by the NCB’s SET, the CBI added.

However, Wankhede said that the central agencies do not have a lawful prior sanction as required as per Section 17A of the PC Act. He also claimed that NCB’s SET has acted in “malice to harass officials by suppressing material facts and circumstances”.

Wankhede further said that the phones of the accused were seized as per proper procedure and Khan had voluntarily handed over his mobile phone for investigation purposes. “The SET was only making frivolous observations to justify decision of giving clean chit to Aryan Khan and allegation against petitioner is nothing but a figment of imagination of SET led by Gyaneshwar Singh,” Wankhede claimed.

Wankhede said that the I-note was submitted by Investigation Officer Haresh Gangan of the Mumbai Zonal Unit at around 7.30 am on October 2, 2021, to Superintendent V V Singh and it was shared prior to the constitution of the team to conduct operation at the cruise ship.

Wankhede said that the I-note with 27 names that SET deemed to be the original I-note is in the format of a picture taken of a phone containing the alleged list of names and the said list was an unsigned document without any file noting and was not in the format of I-note.

He said that, therefore, the presumption of SET that the same was the I-note was untrue and it cannot be treated as “admissible evidence”.