In a new twist to the sensational Provogue case, the Bombay High Court on Saturday directed the Pune-based State CID to conduct an investigation into the role of policemen, who registered a false case of drug possession against Salil Chaturvedi, the owner of apparel brand Provogue.

Salil Chaturvedi

On April 3, 2009, a special NDPS court had acquitted Chaturvedi for lack of evidence. The order was passed by the division bench comprising Justice B H Marlapalle and Justice R Y Ganoo.

It may be recalled that Chaturvedi was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act after three vials of cocaine were allegedly found at his Lokhandwala bungalow in August 2005. However, the police failed to prove the case and he was acquitted.

Salil's lawyer Rizwan Merchant said, "No need to have ATS investigate, when State CID has been directed by the High Court to investigate a matter already inquired by them. We trust State CID more than the ATS."

According to the lawyer, Salil moved a private complaint in the magistrate court in Andheri in August 2005 and later the case was transferred to the special court, NDPS. The special court passed an order in April 2007 directing investigations by the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), but they did nothing for almost two years. Finally, an application was moved in the special NDPS court in November 2009, requesting transfer of investigation from NCB to state CID.u00a0

CID report to state government

The state CID was directed by the state government to conduct an inquiry into the Provogue case after the matter was raised in the assembly in June 2009. Accordingly, the state CID chief SPS Yadav submitted a detailed report, which raises doubts about the policemen who probed the Provogue case.

As per the report, police constable Ashok Bhosale, who was then attached to Santacruz Airport police and was the first to spot the cocaine, in his statement to the CID on September 2, 2009, said that as per the instructions from then senior inspector Gathode and inspector Khenjale, who had given him three vials of cocaine, he found them in the bathroom of Chaturvedi's ground floor. To narrate that inspector Khenjale had recorded the same in the panchnama.u00a0

Surprisingly, on September 14, Bhosale retracted his statement given to the state CID by filing an affidavit.

Several questions unanswered

The report also raises questions on the way the investigation was conducted by certain officers including the investigating officer Khenjale. Khenjale arrested Chaturvedi only on the basis of an accused statement, without any evidence against him. Many questions remain unanswered. Why did the police not search Chaturvedi's 1000-sq-ft office? Why did the police leave Chaturvedi's office premises within 15 minutes? Why did the police not search Chaturvedi's residence for more drugs after seizing the three vials?

Bhosale in his statement revealed that the raiding police party was not carrying any narcotic detecting kit with them when they went to Chaturvedi's house. How then did the police conclude that the powders were indeed cocaine?

When contacted, state CID chief SPS Yadav told Sunday MiD DAY, "I am yet to see the copy of the High Court Order. I have already submitted my report to the government."

When asked about the questions raised in the case, Yadav refused to comment.

Inspector General of Police (Konkan Range) Parambir Singh when contacted said, "I am in a meeting. I will talk to you in sometime." But numerous attempts to contact Singh and other police officers did not yield any result.

Home / Mumbai / Mumbai News / Article / Police role in Provogue case to be investigated

Police role in Provogue case to be investigated

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast