SC withdraws Kolkata ex-top cop protection against arrest

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday withdrew protection to former Kolkata police commissioner Rajeev Kumar from arrest by the CBI, which is investigating the Saradha scam, asking him to approach the competent court for relief.

Withdrawing protection against arrest by the CBI, the bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, however, said that protection against arrest will continue for one more week to enable Mr Kumar to approach the competent court for legal remedy.

The court order came on the CBI’s plea seeking the vacation of February 5 order protecting Mr Kumar against arrest. The CBI had contended that the order protecting against arrest cannot be given in a contempt plea.

The CBI had alleged that the Bengal police was not cooperating and obfuscating the investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protect big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the state.

Expressing its “disappointment and dismay seeing the CBI and the WBSPF pitted and casting aspersions against each other”, Justice Khanna, pronouncing the order, said, “We would withdraw the protection given to Rajeev Kumar, former Kolkata commissioner of police, restraining the CBI from arresting him and thereby, leave it open to the CBI to act in accordance with the law.”

Having withdrawn the protection from arrest, the order on Friday said, “At the same time, we direct that the interim order dated February 5, 2019, would continue for a period of seven days from the date of pronouncement of this order to enable Mr Kumar to approach the competent court for relief, if so advised.”

Referring to its slew of orders by which the court had sought to allay “confrontation and clash” between the CBI and the Bengal police, the court said, “With regret, we acknowledge and accept that despite orders and words of advice, antagonism and acrimony has escalated and not ebbed as is evident from the pleading and arguments addressed before us.”

The court said that its direction passed on Friday was in consonance with its earlier judgments which “mandates that the procedure established in law should be strictly complied with and should not be departed from to the disadvantage or detriment of any person.”