Home »  News »  India

Case against Rahul Gandhi based on non-existent claims: CBI

Monday, 24 September 2012 - 7:37pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI
Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval, who placed the status report of a CBI probe in a sealed cover, said the address and names of the persons, including that of the girl, were 'non-existent'.

CBI on Monday told the Supreme Court that the case of alleged illegal confinement of a girl in which Rahul Gandhi's name was dragged was found to be based on "non-existent" claims.

Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval, who placed the status report of a CBI probe in a sealed cover, said the address and names of the persons, including that of the girl, were "non-existent".

"On verification from various government authorities, including the nagar panchayat and district food and civil supplies inspector, it was confirmed that there was no such address (mentioned in the writ petition) and there exists no record of such persons existing," he said.

The agency also said that habeas corpus petition filed by a former Samajwadi Party MLA from Madhya Pradesh Kishore Samrite, seeking a direction for producing the girl and her parents, was funded by "some others" and his statements have been recorded in this regard.

CBI made these submissions before a bench comprising justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, which was hearing a petition filed by a former MLA challenging Rs 50 lakh fine imposed on him by the Allahabad High Court for approaching it with these allegations.

The High Court on March 7, 2011 had also directed the CBI to register a case against Samrite and to find out as to under what circumstances the PIL was filed.

The apex court bench noted that there were two identical petitions in the High Court and in both of them the petitioners were not the next friend or acquaintances of the victims' family.

He said another identical petition was filed in the High Court and the police had located the persons named as alleged victim, who had recorded their statements denying the incident.




Jump to comments