CBI chief Alok Verma concocted FIR against me, Asthana tells Delhi HC

Rakesh Asthana | Arun Sharma/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

Asthana alleges that FIR, lodged on bribery charges, was ante-dated to ‘save the skin’ of Alok Verma and businessman Sana.

New Delhi: CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana has told the Delhi High Court that the FIR lodged against him “was concocted” by CBI director Alok Verma and businessman Sathish Sana to “save their skin”.

Asthana alleged that the FIR was wilfully ante-dated and was filed disregarding statutory procedure as no approvals were taken before its registration.

Replying to CBI’s affidavit in the case, Asthana has filed a rejoinder in the court of Justice Najmi Waziri, alleging that the FIR was just a “backlash to complaints of criminal misconduct” against Verma.

The two officers are at the heart of an ongoing battle within the CBI, which has seen the agency file the FIR against Asthana. The war also prompted the Modi government to step in and divest both officers of their charges.

Delay in filing of FIR

In his affidavit, Asthana alleged that there had been an 11-day delay in registration of the case against him. The CBI special director stated that while Sana, the businessman, lodged a complaint on 4 October, alleging that he had paid Rs 25 lakh to a conduit of Asthana, the FIR was registered only on 15 October.

Sana is a businessman that a SIT, headed by Asthana, was probing in the Moin Qureshi case.

“The FIR was registered after 11 days on 15 October at 8 pm, that too without obtaining the mandatory approval under section 17 A of the PC Act,” Asthana’s affidavit claimed, adding that it reached a magistrate within 51 hours of the registration on 17 October.

“This shows that the FIR was ante-dated,” Asthana has claimed, adding that it was done “to defy the legal binding directions of the CVC” and to allow the CBI chief “to extract a confession from Manoj Prasad (middleman arrested in Asthana bribery case) to falsely implicate him.”

Asthana has also questioned why Sana’s complaint was taken on record only on 15 October.  “In his complaint dated October 15, Sana has claimed to have paid an amount of Rs 25 lakh to some person through his employee Puneet,” the affidavit reads. “It is surprising to note that despite being aware of the matter since 4 October, the concerned CBI officials did not arrest the person to whom the money was handed over on 10 October,” the affidavit reads.

‘Why did official close to Verma interrogate Sana in Qureshi case?’

Asthana has also claimed that Ajay Kumar Bassi, who is said to be close to Verma, recorded the statement of businessman Sathish Sana in the Moin Qureshi case when he allegedly had nothing to do with it.

The affidavit states that it was Devinder Kumar, considered close to Asthana, who was probing Sana’s role in the Moin Qureshi case.

“On 4 October Satish (Sana) said to have approached the CBI with a complaint of harassment and bribe demand by the petitioner. It is curiously silent on whom he contacted,” the affidavit reads. “If he contacted Verma, then how and in what manner? How a new person (Ajay Kumar Bassi) who was not part of the investigating team was allowed to take Sana’s statement?”

‘Plan to stall probe against Sana’

Asthana also alleged that the FIR was lodged against him just to stall the investigation against Sana and to shift focus from Verma.

“The pending investigation against the complainant, Sana has been stalled due to the instant false FIR, which has been framed in collusion with Verma to avoid coming to light of the fact that Verma was receiving illegal gratifications at the hands of Sana and this entire quagmire is a mere cover up for that fact,” the affidavit reads.

Stating that he was, in fact, working to arrest Sana, Asthana stated that he had initiated the procedure for custodial interrogation for Sana, which was struck down by Verma.

He stated that he also issued a lookout notice for him.

“No sane person would issue a lookout notice against the person from whom he is getting illegal gratifications,” Asthana has stated in his rejoinder.