Almost 29 months after it arrested encounter specialist Daya Nayak, the bureau is yet to file a charge sheet. Nayak had surrendered before the ACB on February 20, 2006.
Daya Nayak faces a disproportionate assets case
After it got a lashing from the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) over the arrest of P Manivelan, an accused in the disproportionate assets case against encounter specialist Daya Nayak, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) might again find itself in a spot over the way it has handled the case.
Almost 29 months after it arrested encounter specialist Daya Nayak, the bureau is yet to file a charge sheet. Nayak had surrendered before the ACB on February 20, 2006. Law stipulates that the charge sheet should have been filed within 60 days of the arrest.
Nayak was in custody for 60 days before he got bail from the Bombay High Court.
The ACB is now awaiting sanction from the director-general of police, AN Roy, to file the charge sheet. “Our investigations in the case are complete,” additional commissioner of police Prabhakar Satam said. “We had written to the DG’s office four months ago for his sanction. Once we get the sanction, we will file the charge sheet.”
Nayak, who has been under suspension ever since his arrest, said he was wrongfully arrested. “I, however, have complete faith in our judiciary and am confident that I will get justice,” he said.
The MSHRC has fined the state Rs25,000 for putting P Manivelan behind bars for 62 days. It has asked the state to recover the amount from additional commissioner of police Pradnya Sarvade, who was in charge of the investigations when Manivelan and Nayak were arrested.
The ACB had accused Manivelan of helping a public servant acquire disproportionate funds. It claimed that Manivelan managed Nayak’s funds and made investments on his behalf.
Manivelan had approached the MSHRC after his release by the HC. ACB callousness prompted the MSHRC to also order a departmental inquiry against Sarvade.
MSHRC chief Kshitij Vyas said Manivelan was called for interrogations at least 30 times and he co-operated with the ACB. “However, the police failed to find evidence of his involvement in the case. They still jailed him for 62 days,” Vyas said. This was a violation of human rights, he said.
Satam, additional commissioner of police, said the ACB had sought a copy of the MSHRC judgment. The bureau will most probably move the HC against the order.
A senior officer said it was the court that had remanded Manivelan to custody. “The bureau just did its job while seeking the custody of the accused. It was the court which granted the custody because it felt the need to do so,” he said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}