Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed the plea seeking directions for an investigation against former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Parambir Singh in connection with the Antilia bomb blast scare incident that occurred on February 25, 2021.

The division bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Kamal Khata noted that the averments made in the petition were hearsay in nature. "They do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence nor do they show that there is any reasonable probability of the commission of cognizable offence at the hands of the former Commissioner of Police," court underscored. 

The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Parshuram Sharma seeking direction to the State Police to probe Singh's alleged complicity in the Antilia bomb scare case as well as Mansukh Hiren's murder.

The petitioner claimed to be a social activist who alleged that he knew something about the case and there was a possibility that the former Commissioner of Mumbai Police, Parambir Singh could be one of the accused.

Advocate Sandesh Patil appearing for State, submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition and this was based upon the hearsay evidence gathered from the newspaper reports.

However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the source of information of the petitioner was only the newspaper reports, but later on, the petitioner gathered some more information, which indicated the possibility of involvement of the former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in the crime.

After considering the arguments, court noted that averments were only in the nature of hearsay evidence as the suspicion that the petitioner carried against the former Commissioner of Police, Mumbai was drawn from whatever information he had gathered from the newspaper reports.

The bench also noted that in an order issued on January 23, 2023, in the bail petition of one of the accused, Pradeep Sharma, a coordinate bench made some observations about the payment of 5 lakh to one Ishaan Sinha, a cyber specialist.

However, the court did not go further in this regard.

“If the petitioner wishes to convert his suspicion into a reasonable probability of the former Commissioner of Police being involved in the crime, he must show additional circumstances that convert his suspicion into a reasonable probability of the former Commissioner of Police engaging in some or other criminal activity, cognizance of which must be taken,” the bench held.

Additionally, the bench stated that any criminal law can be set into motion only if the complaint made to the police is in terms with Section 154 of CrPC and all the necessary aspects for initiation of an investigation into a cognizable crime in this matter against the cop were absent.

Thus, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Parshuram Sharma vs State of Maharashtra