Halt Param Bir probe until decision on transfer of cases to CBI: SC to state

Singh had approached the apex court against Bombay High Court’s September 16, 2021 judgment dismissing his plea challenging the two preliminary inquiries initiated against him by Maharashtra government. He has also argued that the probe in criminal cases lodged against him in the state be transferred to CBI, as they are linked to the case against former Maharashtra Home minister Anil Desmukh, which CBI is probing.

The CBI, too, has backed this.

Hearing arguments in the matter on Tuesday, the SC bench echoed the concern that completion of the probe by state police may have implications on petitions pending before it. Fixing it for final hearing on March 9, Justice Kaul told senior advocate Darius Khambata, who appeared for Maharashtra, “meanwhile, you please completely stay your hand”.

Khmabata, however, urged the court not to state so in the order and said he will instead give assurance that the probe will not proceed until the SC takes a call.

Responding, Justice Kaul said the court will not issue any direction but will record Khambata’s assurance.

The bench said in its order that “in view of the aforesaid (concern about completion of the probe posing problems to petitions pending before it), we put a query to Mr Darius Khambata on this issue, and he gives an assurance to this court that in all senses the matter will be put on hold…. We take the assurance on record…”

Appearing for Param Bir, senior advocate Puneet Bali said although SC had in the past allowed investigation in the cases to continue, it had restrained the state from filing charge sheets. But despite this, a charge sheet had been filed in one of the cases, he said.

Bali said this was done to prevent some of the other accused from getting default bail.

Khambatta told the bench that the charge sheet was only against the other accused and not Singh. He contended that the submissions by Singh were intended to “prejudice” the court “unnecessarily”.

Justice Kaul responded that no one can prejudice the court and called developments in the matter a “messy state of affairs”.

“We have had the occasion to tell earlier also that it’s [a] messy state of affairs,” the bench said. “It has the propensity of unnecessarily shaking the confidence of people in the police system, in the elected representatives…most unfortunate situation.”

The bench added that “having said so…the process of law must carry on…”

Appearing for CBI, senior advocate Tushar Mehta said that it is in fitness of things that all FIRs are entrusted to one agency, and that in his opinion it should be given to CBI.

While the court allowed the state to continue the investigation, state authorities “should not do anything that will make the job of the court more difficult, should it be persuaded to order a CBI probe”, Mehta contended.