CBI sub-inspector Abhishek Tiwari received “illegal gratification” for leaking sensitive and confidential information related to the alleged corruption case against former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh, the agency’s chargesheet showed. The bribe was for iPhone 12 Pro.
The findings of the chargesheet, discussed by a Delhi court on Friday, said Tiwari was given a phone call worth Rs 95,000 by Deshmukh’s lawyer, Advocate Anand Dilip Daga, when the sub-inspector was probing the case in Pune.
Adding to the purchase of the iPhone, the CBI said, “Daga met him (Tiwari) and handed over an iPhone 12 Pro to him as illegal gratification in return for passing the details in connection with the said inquiry and investigation, thereby performing a public duty.” Inappropriate performance.” “Was confirmed by WhatsApp chat.”
Tiwari and Daga were arrested after the agency’s alleged Preliminary Investigation (PE) report leaked, which found that there was no cognizable charge against Deshmukh on corruption charges leveled by former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh in Mumbai. The offense was not made out. High Court. The CBI alleged that the leaked report was circulated on social media as part of a “larger conspiracy to sabotage the investigation”.
On Friday, the court refused bail to Tiwari and Daga, who said the CBI had filed an incomplete chargesheet, which they called a set of loose pages, to defeat their right to get default bail. . Special Judge Sanjeev Agarwal, in his order reproduced the main charges and findings of the CBI investigation, ruled that the CBI’s chargesheet, filed 89 days after the arrest of the duo in the Rouse Avenue court, was not incomplete.
The CBI further alleged that Tiwari “shared copies of documents such as memorandum of action, ceiling-unsealing memorandum, statement, seizure memo etc” with Daga “through WhatsApp on several occasions”. It added that Tiwari, who was “entrusted with the possession of case sensitive documents as part of the investigation and investigation in his capacity as a sub-inspector, has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property.”
,