Supreme Court seeks CBI response on plea for SIT probe

The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on an application from Centre for Public Interest Litigation for an SIT probe into the alleged interference by former director Ranjit Sinha in the coal scam cases.

A three-judge bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A.K. Sikri sought CBI response by February 9 and posted the matter for further hearing on February 16.

Earlier, counsel Prashant Bhushan appearing for the CPIL pointed out that as the coal scam investigations progressed, it came to light that Mr Sinha, along with a few other senior officers of the level of the joint director, repeatedly overruled the investigation officers and forced them to not to register FIRs/RCs in cases where PEs had been registered.

Mr Bhushan said Mr Sinha even forced them to file closure reports in cases where FIRs had already been registered. T

The counsel said, “it has now come to light that the special public prosecutor appointed by the Supreme Court in the coal scam cases, Mr R.S. Cheema, has disagreed with the decisions of Mr Sinha to file closure reports in several FIRs despite the fact that evidence of criminal culpability had been found against several companies, influential accused and public servants.”

Mr Bhushan in his application also pointed out that the entry register of 2013 and 2014 maintained at the gate of the official residence of the Mr Sinha at 2, Janpath, New Delhi, showed that he was having meetings, several of them late at night, at his residence with several accused persons in prominent cases like coal scam, without any of the investigation officers being present.

The counsel said, “there were visits by several of the coal scam accused, such as Mr Vijay Darda, Mr Devendra Darda and Mr Subodh Kant Sahaya at the time Mr Sinha was trying to close the ongoing cases against them. The Dardas and Mr Sinha have not denied these meetings.” He prayed for a SIT probe into the manner in which Mr Sinha scuttled the investigation.

Senior counsel Amarendra Saran appearing for the CBI sought time to file his response. Meanwhile, senior counsel Vikas Singh appearing for Mr Sinha denied the allegations and said that Mr Bhushan was misleading the court.

He said Mr Sinha had filed a perjury application against Mr Bhushan and it should be heard immediately. The bench while posting the matter for further hearing on February 16 said it would hear Mr Sinha’s application on that day.