CBI sub-inspector bribed with iPhone for leaking details of Deshmukh probe, says charge sheet

CBI sub-inspector Abhishek Tiwari received “illegal gratification” for leaking sensitive and confidential information related to the alleged corruption case against former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, the agency’s charge sheet revealed. The bribe was an iPhone 12 Pro.

The findings of the charge sheet, discussed by a Delhi court on Friday, stated that Tiwari was given the phone worth Rs 95,000 by Deshmukh’s lawyer, Advocate Anand Dilip Daga, when the sub-inspector was in Pune investigating the case.

“Daga met him (Tiwari) and handed over to him an iPhone 12 Pro as illegal gratification in lieu of passing details regarding the said enquiry and investigation, thereby causing improper performance of public duty,” the CBI stated, adding the purchase of the iPhone was “corroborated by WhatsApp chats.”

Tiwari and Daga were arrested after the leak of the purported Preliminary Enquiry (PE) report of the agency, which had found that no cognizable offence was made out against Deshmukh on the allegations of corruption levelled by former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh in the Bombay High Court. The leaked report, the CBI alleged, got circulated on social media as part of a “larger conspiracy to subvert the investigation”.

On Friday, the court denied bail to Tiwari and Daga, who had stated that the CBI had filed an incomplete charge sheet, which they said was a set of loose pages, to defeat their right to get default bail. Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal reproduced the main allegations and findings of the CBI probe in his order while ruling that the CBI charge sheet, filed 89 days after the duo’s arrest at Rouse Avenue court, was not incomplete.

The CBI further alleged that Tiwari “shared copies of documents like memorandum of proceedings, sealing-unsealing memorandum, statements, seizure memos etc., related to the investigation of the case” with Daga “through WhatsApp on many occasions”. It said Tiwari, who was “entrusted with the possession of case sensitive documents as part of the enquiry and investigation in his capacity as a Sub-Inspector, has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of said property.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button