The committee was formed under former director general of police Sanjay Pandey. Based on the committee’s report, a case was registered against Shukla, who is currently posted as additional director general of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Hyderabad on a central deputation. A senior buraucrat said due process of law would be followed before actually withdrawing the case.
Two more cases were registered against Shukla with the Colaba police in Mumbai and with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Shukla had then moved the Bombay high court by filing a couple of petitions for the quashing of the FIRs in Pune and Mumbai. On March 4 this year, the HC granted ad interim protection against arrest to Shukla, which continues till date. Both petitions are pending and are slated for their next hearing on November 18, 2022, as per information on the HC website.
In the Pune case, the HC bench of Justice S S Shinde and Justice N R Borkar, while granting the ad interim relief to Shukla, had said, “Prima facie, we are convinced that the petitioner needs to be protected until further orders for the following brief reasons.”
The bench said, “Firstly, prima facie, there appears to be a delay in registering the FIR. Secondly, it appears that the FIR is registered only against the petitioner though other officers were involved in the process of obtaining sanction for surveillance for unearthing narcotics operations in Pune City. And thirdly, the petitioner is a high rank officer and occupying the responsible post of Additional Director General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad, and that she has given assurance before the court through Senior Advocate Mr. (Mahesh) Jethmalani that full cooperation will be given during the course of investigation of the subject FIR.”
Jethmalani had argued, among other things, that the FIR was registered after three years from the alleged cause of action and that the petitioner was singled out though a number of officers were involved in the process of obtaining nod for surveillance for unearthing narcotics operations in Pune. In view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the FIR could not have been registered against the petitioner, he had said.
