The Supreme Court will continue hearing on Thursday plea of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking permission to arrest and custodial interrogation of former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar for his alleged role in destructing evidence in Saradha chit fund case.
A Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi heard the arguments of the CBI and Kumar's counsel. As arguments remain inconclusive, the matter will again come up for hearing on Thursday.
On Tuesday, the Bench had asked the CBI to show materials and satisfy the court on its plea for the custodial interrogation of Kumar.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the CBI on Thursday submitted few documents to the court on the issue.
During the hearing, Mehta said that if there is a case of destruction of evidence, then let the law take its own course.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Rajeev Kumar and state of West Bengal opposed the CBI's plea for Kumar's custodial interrogation.
CBI has filed the plea seeking direction to withdraw its February 5 order granting protection to Rajeev Kumar from the arrest.
The investigative agency had said that the custodial interrogation of Kumar was required to investigate the larger conspiracy and Kumar's role and other police officials in causing disappearance and destruction of evidence.
CBI had also said the arrest and custodial interrogation of Rajeev Kumar was required to unravel the conspiracy, nexus between directors of Saradha Group and politicians.
The CBI had said that Rajeev Kumar, who earlier appeared before CBI officials for questioning in Shillong as per the Supreme Court order, remained elusive and evaded all pertinent questions and also did not assist the CBI in making available crucial evidence in the chit fund cases. Kumar has not disclosed any crucial information he was privy to.
CBI had said in its plea that Kumar, who was in-charge of the day-to-day functioning of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in chit fund case, failed in collecting certain key electronic evidence.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
