Antilia Bomb Scare-Mansukh Hiren Murder Case: Bombay High Court Refuses To Order Probe Against Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Parambir Singh

A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Kamal Khata held that the petition is based on hearsay evidence and does not disclose any offence at the hands of Singh.

“the averments made in the petition are hearsay in nature. They do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence nor do they show that there is any reasonable probability of commission of cognizable offence at the hands of former Commissioner of Police”, the court held.

The petitioner, one Parshuram Sharma, sought directions to the State to investigate Singh’s role in the case. He claimed that he has gathered some information indicating possibility of Singh’s involvement in the crime.

A co-ordinate bench had earlier denied bail to former cop Pradeep Sharma, prime accused in the case and expressed concern about the NIA’s investigation. The division bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice RN Laddha had questioned why Singh gave Rs 5 lakhs to a cyber expert named Ishan Sinha.

The petitioner relied on these observations to support his case.

However, the NIA contended that the petitioner does not have locus standi to file the petition. Further, his petition is based on hearsay evidence from newspaper reports.

The court agreed with the NIA that the petition is based on hearsay evidence.

It further stated that the observations in Pradeep Sharma bail judgment merely express concern about the objectivity of the police investigation but do not go any further than that.

“these observations, except for expressing suspicion about objectivity and integrity of the investigation made by the police on a particular aspect of the case, which is payment of huge fees of Rs.5 lakhs to one Ishaan Sinha, do not go any further. In fact, the Division Bench has only asked a question as to why a huge payment was made to one Ishaan Sinha, Cyber Expert and further question was asked as to what was the interest of the Commissioner of Police. But, beyond asking these questions, the Division Bench had said nothing”, the court held.

The court said that the petitioner would have to show more circumstances which can convert his suspicion into a reasonable probability of Singh having been involved in the crime.

The court held that the contentions in the petition do not show that Singh committed any cognizable offence, or a reasonable probability of Singh having committed a cognizable offence.

“Unless and until such material is available on record and it is within the own knowledge of the person seeking registration of a crime, it cannot be said that any more investigation by police is warranted and that a person seeking such investigation in the crime has locus in the matter”, the court added.

The court reiterated that only a person who has credible information about an offence has the locus to file an FIR in police station under section 154 of CrPC.

Therefore, the court dismissed the petition.

Advocates NS Ghanekar and Kuldip S Kahalekar represented the Petitioner while Advocates Sandesh Patil and Chintan Shah represented the NIA and APP YM Nakhwa represented the State.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 1384 of 2022

Case Title – Parshuram S/o Rambhilakh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 166

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment