Mumbai: There was no assistance to the Government of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the petition submitted for the investigation monitored by the court by a special investigation team (sitting) to replace the CBI who investigated the registered FIR of the former Minister of Deshmukh and the other for the alleged transaction Corrupt at the police post and transfer.
Judge Nitin Jamdar and Justice Kotwal Sarang while saying his assessment reading the conclusion that said: “Considering the totality of the pioneer is not entitled to any assistance,” and argues that there are no cases made to withdraw investigations from the Investigation Bureau (CBI) and sit.
HC holds, “There is no substance in the conflict (the Maharashtra government run by MVA) that because (Subodh Jaiswal) is now Director of CBI, CBI respondents are incompetent to continue inquiry.” HC also said that the state application was “only an effort” ” To take an investigation somehow moved away from the CBI so it did not continue.
“HC did not find benefits in the contradiction of the state-separated CBI to be done.
Investigation in this problem.
“There are no cases made to attract investigations from respondents and entrust to the Special Investigation Team as prayed The CBI Director Subodh Jaiswal is a former DGP around the time when the accusation was made against Deshmukh and was heading for a police station (PEB) S who decided and recommended police posting.
The HC bench explained that his findings or observations of the state were not considered the indictment of the state of the Maharashtra state in GE Nerals “but they are in the context of being parties in this litigation and as a set of problems raised in this petition.” The 74-page judgment said, “During the trial, in response to the allegations in the land – H of the petition investigated, respondents voluntarily Placing an investigation paper to examine the court in a closed envelope to satisfy the conscience of the court that the investigation was not done in a way of mala and there was justification for the same thing.
The applicant opposed this closed envelope on the note.
“HC quoted a SC decision in the case of P Chidambaram said” can read the material collected during an investigation by prosecution to satisfy his conscience to the right of the direction.
“HC judgment added,” After reading an investigation paper, we can say that the accusation was made by (state) that the investigation was being carried out in a way of Mala which was not guaranteed.
Because investigations are taking place, we do not want to describe and comment on the contents of the investigation paper further.
“Besides without services, this challenge based on the role of Jaiswal” does not have a bonafide, “HC said Which is the police chief, will be in a position to influence the investigation, the same criterion must apply to the CBI after Jaiswal becomes the director High-ranking police officers with specific details given by the court to entrust investigations to entrust investigations to the CBI.
There is no imputation of Respondents No.2 (Subodh Jaiswal).
Additional lawyers Safe Lekhi General for the CBI believes that the dispute and application of countries is none other than “Uttter and total hypocrisy ”.” It was strange not to let the investigation continue …
and in some cases protecting individuals or avoiding supervision, “SH has sent.
While sending.
Darius Khambata’s senior adviser to the state believes that it only wants a fair and non-biased investigation to be done.
Lekhi in detailed shipments before the High Court against the state petition, has questioned the “behavior”.
CBI’s advice said, “Writ was wrongly packed …
this request was not even raised by the parties but by the state ” who did not have the right and could not be entitled to the help sought.
In turn Khambata said, the CBI probe” tried to reduce moral and frighten each police officer.
“