The Bombay High Court has granted former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede interim protection until Monday, and directed him to appear before the CBI on Saturday, for investigation.

Wankhede was present during the court proceedings, and senior advocate Rizwan Merchant represented him, making extensive arguments about the alleged misuse of power. Merchant emphasized that Wankhede, a celebrated IRS officer of the Indian government, has been wrongly implicated in the case. He further contended that the CBI does not have jurisdiction to register the case and referred to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which imposes a time limit of four months for completing the inquiry from the date of registration of the main offense. In the Cordelia case, the offense was registered on October 3, 2021, and more than two years have passed since then, with the FIR only being registered recently.

The public prosecutor representing the CBI failed to provide a satisfactory response to these arguments. However, he mentioned that the government's approval was received on May 11, and the FIR was registered accordingly, bringing the CBI into the picture. When questioned by the court if this was the official stance of the CBI, the public prosecutor said that he will file a reply.

The court passed order saying, prima facie there is a legal bar under 17A of the PC Act and asked CBI to not to take any coercive action till Monday and asked Wankhede to appear before them on Saturday.

Merchant requested relief from arrest, while the CBI argued granting him relief would hinder the ongoing investigation, particularly considering his alleged lack of cooperation. The CBI pointed out that Wankhede failed to comply with the summons issued for his appearance on May 18. The CBI stated that if he cooperates, they would not arrest him. However, the CBI refused to provide assurance, raising the question of what would happen if he did not cooperate.

Wankhede, in his writ petition, has made a huge claim saying Aryan Khan's name was removed at the last minute before filing the charge sheet and the original draft prepared by legal advisors of the NCB had his name.

Wankhede in his petition submitted that whilst the investigation concluded and a draft complaint was prepared by the Department Legal Advisor (DLA) Japan Babu, whereby charges were proposed against Aryan Khan, and various sections were included in it, the said draft complaint never came to be filed on record. In fact, it was replaced with a separate draft complaint prepared from outside, a fact also confirmed by the DLA on a telephone call with the petitioner on June 2, 2022 between 10:48 PM and 10:58 PM. "The petitioner (Wankhede) crave leave to refer and rely upon the recordings of the telephone calls that the Petitioner had with the DLA on 2nd June 2022," the petition reads

Merchant said that Wankhede will cooperate but CBI should probe where the original draft is and why the same is being destroyed and they should also investigate DDG Gyaneshwar Singh who was passing all the order at the time of Aryan Khan's arrest. "I have full faith in the judiciary and the CBI as well that I will get justice," Wankhede said.

Top criminal lawyers discuss the legal implications of Rhea Chakraborty’s interviews to the media and what they mean for the ongoing CBI probe
Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; August 31, 2020)

Rhea Chakraborty’s media interviews have sharply divided public opinion, but an important question doing the rounds is: Will her statements on TV have any impact on the investigation itself ? This is especially relevant, since Rhea was called for questioning by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Friday, the night after her interviews were aired.

Senior criminal lawyers we spoke to have pointed out a few legal implications of her interviews. According to advocate Rizwan Merchant, “There is no restraint or prohibition in law for a person to discuss or disclose facts about a case in the media. It does not, will not and should not affect the investigation, because the CBI will conduct its investigation on the basis of material available to them. Thanks to the electronic media, Rhea knows a lot about the progress of the investigation and the nature of material available with the CBI, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Therefore, she’s bound to go prepared with answers to even the most crucial questions. Thanks to the electronic media, she knows a lot about the enquiries going on against her under various investigative agencies. The details of the investigation are usually kept under wraps and the accused does not know anything till he or she is called for questioning. Whatever the media is disclosing is helping Rhea develop her defence. She’s done nothing wrong by discussing her defence with the media. Her interview could essentially also be her line of defence. While I trust the CBI to do a great job, grilling Rhea will only be tougher for them now and may also take time.”

Advocate Ashok Saraogi, another criminal lawyer, points out, “If Rhea has admitted to something in her interview, it will be treated as her voluntary statement under Section 164 of CrPC, as there is no force upon her to admit something publicly. If she cannot corroborate what she has admitted, this can go against her. It seems to me that she has gone to a channel only to put forward her defence in front of people and create a positive public image. If she has named people or given other details, and those are not proven, it will amount to misguiding the investigation and can be used against her.”

Criminal lawyer, advocate Dipesh Mehta saw Rhea’s interviews in a slightly different light. He says, “Her statements cannot be read or interpreted in law in isolation. The CrPC. is clear that a statement made before a magistrate, after he or she gives you the knowledge that it can be used against you in evidence, cannot be revoked or withdrawn. So, what Rhea speaks on a public platform has no legal relevance and importance, till the time her statement is recorded before a magistrate. The prosecution has an advantage, if they can demonstrate the contradictions in her statements before the magistrate, to prejudice him or her. It is trial by media and hence, such statements are made for forming public opinions and prejudicing the investigating agencies.”

Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee further elaborates, “Rhea is a prime suspect and since there has been a loss of life in this case, the CBI can arrest her, which has not happened yet. She has got the chance to clean up her image in public. Had this matter been sub-judice, it would have been contempt of court, but that is not the case here. There is no illegality in what she has done.”

DNA (December 20, 2018)

Even as producer Prernaa Arora hopes to get bail today in the case filed against her by Vashu Bhagnani, she still won’t be able to go home yet. Once her police custody in this matter ends, she is likely to be arrested again as there are three cheating cases against her registered with the EOW (Economic Offences Wing). Moreover, arrest warrant has also been issued against her mother Protima Arora.

Earlier this Monday, the Toilet - Ek Prem Katha, Pad Man and Pari producer, who was allegedly arrested for duping Bhagnani and his company, Pooja Films, to the tune of Rs 31.6 crore, told the Mumbai Police that she couldn’t repay her investors as her company KriArj Entertainment suffered big losses. Currently in police remand till today (December 20), Prernaa has three cheating cases, the total of which amounts to Rs 65.9 cr.

Meanwhile, both, Protima and Prernaa’s business partner Arjun N Kapoor, were reportedly not at their respective residences when the cops reached there. Last heard, they hadn’t been arrested.

Interestingly, industry sources say that the producer, who began her innings with Rustom and got into financial trouble earlier this year when her collaborations like Parmanu: The Story Of Pokhran, Fanney Khan, Batti Gul Meter Chalu and Kedarnath came to a halt, was apparently advised to take stock of her situation, but she didn’t heed the warnings. According to an industry source, “Prernaa had taken about Rs 50 crore from Vashu, promising him first claim on her film, even though she had given away the rights to another organisation. After much delay, she settled about Rs 18 cr and apparently kept on procrastinating settling the remaining amount. After she repeatedly failed to deposit Rs 5 cr as ordered by the court in the Parmanu matter, Vashu reportedly felt she was harassing him and he finally decided to go the legal route to get recover his money.”

Elaborating on the losses she suffered, our informer adds, “Prernaa suffered a big loss of over Rs 20 cr from two films. Add to that, she was spreading herself too thin, inking multiple co-productions when she should have waited for those films under-production to complete and release. She had paid about Rs 8 cr to Vishal Bhardwaj for their collaboration, and between Rs 2.5 cr and Rs 3 cr each to Siddharth Anand and Ahmed Khan. Since those films didn’t materialise for various reasons, a filmmakers’ association advised her to ask her money back from them and settle part of her dues with Vashu. But she didn’t take it too seriously, and that’s also escalated to the amount she owes her investors. Now, today’s will determine her next course of action.”

We tried contacting Prernaa’s lawyer, Rizwan Merchant for their side of the story, but he was in court and couldn’t respond till the time of going to press.

Neha Maheshwri and Seema Mattoo (BOMBAY TIMES; May 9, 2017)

After music composer-singer Ankit Tiwari was acquitted of rape charges recently, the complainant, who turned hostile, says she will now move the High Court
Neha Maheshwri (BOMBAY TIMES; May 3, 2017)

Actor's mother Rabiya, who hired the forensic specialist, wants to share report with city court, but there are doubts over its admissibility
Munish Pandey (MUMBAI MIRROR; September 20, 2016)

Actor Jiah Khan's hanging was staged and the marks on her face and neck indicate it's not a simple case of suicide, a British forensic expert has concluded in a report, adding a fresh twist to the three-year-old case.

Jason Payne-James's findings, which were studied by Mirror, contradict Indian experts' report on Jiah's death, and her mother, Rabia, intends to share them with a city sessions court on Wednesday. It remains to be seen if the court will admit a report by a foreign expert who was hired by Rabiya, and not the state.

The development comes over a month after the CBI told the Bombay High Court that it had ruled out murder in the case.

Jiah, who had been dating actor Aditya Pancholi's son, Sooraj, was found hanged in her Juhu apartment on June 3, 2013. Rabiya has repeatedly said 25-year-old Jiah could not have committed suicide, and filed a petition for a thorough probe in the High Court, which asked the CBI to take up the case.

In December last year, the agency charged Sooraj with abetment to suicide. Unhappy with the probe, Rabiya roped in Payne-James of UK-based Forensic Healthcare Services Ltd.

Payne-James studied the medical and post-mortem reports, analysed photographs of Jiah's body and reviewed CCTV grabs and pictures of her room for his investigation.

The state's forensic experts had said the injury marks on Jiah's lower lip were probably the result of "friction with the teeth during the commission of the act [suicide]". But Payne-James has said the injuries "represent either abrasions or bruises", and are indicative of "blunt force trauma to the mouth region (for example punching or a hand placed over the mouth)".

"In terms of their site and appearance, they are not typical of teeth marks," the report states.

State forensic experts had said the ligature marks on Jiah's neck "may be caused due to slippage of ligature material [dupatta] slightly downwards or the ligature knot present at that site".

But Payne-James concluded that the dupatta could not have created such impressions. "It would seem unlikely that the diffuse pressure of the dupatta around the neck would cause the well-defined abraded ligature mark seen," he has said.

The British forensic experts has also ruled out the possibility of the dupatta creating marks on Jiah's lower jaw, contradicting state experts' opinion that said the injury may have been caused by multiple knots on the dupatta.

"I would have expected any forensic specialist to have insisted on seeing the dupatta. I do not see that there is any realistic possibility of the dupatta creating the patterned injury under the chin. Other causes or objects should have been considered such as a blunt impact from a patterned object, or a ligature made of different material," Payne-James's report states.

He has questioned Indian investigators' failure to explore theories other than suicide. "I do not believe that the possibility of a staged hanging after death that has been caused previously has been properly considered (e.g. ligature strangulation with some other material and then Nafisa Khan being 'hung' with the dupatta)," he has said. Jiah's real name was Nafisa Rizvi Khan.

He adds: "The marks on the left arm and the lower lip are consistent with assaultive injuries... the marks of ligature and the mark on the chin are not consistent with simple hanging with the dupatta."

Payne-James believes Indian forensic experts didn't study medical evidence in the case thoroughly. "There are a number of serious misinterpretations (or exclusions of reasonable inferences) of the medical evidence, and that the apparent intention to attribute her death to suicide may mean that the real possibility of a staged hanging subsequent to earlier death at the hands of another has been missed," the report states.

Rabiya's counsel, Dinesh Tiwari, said the findings showed that Indian investigators had not done a thorough job. "We will approach the court to take these findings into consideration," he said.

But Aditya Pancholi raised doubts over the admissibility of the report. "This report is from a private forensic lab and it's paid. We will see if a court admits it or not. The investigations have been done by different agencies and all of them have come to the same conclusion [that it was a suicide]," he said.

But legal experts Mirror spoke to said no judge would reject new insights into a case outright. "Any expert opinion is admissible before the court and the findings are taken into serious consideration. Now, what evidence was made available to the forensic lab that prepared the report holds key value," said senior criminal lawyer Rizwan Merchant.

ONE CASE, TWO THEORIES

INJURY MARKS ON JIAH'S LOWER LIP

What Indian experts said: Teeth marks caused on lower lip during "commission of the act [suicide]"
What Brit specialist says: Not typical teeth marks. Indicative of "blunt force trauma to the mouth region (for example punching or a hand placed over the mouth)".

MARKS ON THE NECK

What Indian experts said: Caused by "slippage of ligature material [dupatta] slightly downwards"
What Brit specialist says: Dupatta could not have created well-defined abraded ligature marks

HIS CONCLUSION: Apparent intention to attribute death to suicide may mean real possibility of a staged hanging subsequent to earlier death at the hands of another has been missed
----------------------------
UK-based forensic investigator will submit his investigation report to the Bombay High Court today
Rachana Dubey (BOMBAY TIMES; September 20, 2016)

Ankur Pathak (MUMBAI MIRROR; January 9, 2015)

Sanjay Dutt, who was granted a 14-day furlough last December, reached Yerwada Central Jail in Pune on Thursday evening. And returned home a few hours later after he managed to get "deemed extension". He can stay home until the authorities decide on another date.

Confirming the same his lawyer, Rizwan Merchant, told Mirror, "The deemed extension arises based on a statement made by the Home Minister. He said surrender is not necessary until the police gives its report and the authorities decide on Dutt's furlough extension plea. We reached Yerwada and verified this with the authorities after which Sanjay decided to return home."

He explained that an application for another 14-day extension was filed before the expiry of the furlough. "If the jail authorities didn't want to extend it, they would have rejected it and written to us saying that he needs to surrender. This did not happen. They accepted our application and it is now under process. We've taken this as deemed extension."

Asked when the actor will return to prison, Merchant said it would be on the date the authorities decide upon. "It could be another two, five or even 14 days," he pointed out.

The actor had surrendered in May 2013 after Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence for illegal arms possession.