Video Evidence of Alleged Threats by Sanjay Raut, Sushma Andhare and Varun Sardesai Handed Over to the CBI
Satish Salian seeks urgent review of State security to Aaditya Thackeray; demands threat assessment and protection for complainant, lawyers and witnesses — says liability of Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharati and other responsible officers must be examined under Sections 107, 120-B IPC and other applicable provisions if deliberate omission facilitates any attack
The representation seeks an immediate independent threat assessment and adequate security for Satish Salian, Adv. Nilesh C. Ojha, Sameer Wankhede and Ashutosh Pathak, stating that they possess material information relevant to the allegations under investigation.
Mumbai, September 27: A serious question over the use of State police machinery has been raised in the Disha Salian case after a detailed representation dated September 26 sought an immediate review of the police protection being provided to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray, while alleging that Disha Salian’s father Satish Salian, his advocates and material witnesses have not been provided adequate security despite repeated complaints and an asserted threat perception.
The representation, submitted by Advocate Abhishek Mishra on behalf of Satish Salian to constitutional and investigative authorities, specifically questions what it describes as a disturbing imbalance: substantial State security, including Y+ security, is stated to continue for Aaditya Thackeray, while the complainant and witnesses whose cooperation is crucial to the CBI investigation allegedly remain exposed to threats and intimidation.
NCB Crime No. 15/2020: Alleged Evidence of Aaditya Thackeray’s Involvement in Drugs Business—Why Is He Being Provided Y+ Security? Matter Needs CBI Investigation
The September 26 representation goes further and seeks an immediate review of the State-sponsored Y+ security being provided to Aaditya Thackeray. It asserts that material, including phone surveillance/interception records collected in connection with NCB Crime No. 15 of 2020, establishes his involvement in the drugs business. In these circumstances, the representation questions the justification for continuing substantial State security at public expense and demands that the entire issue, including the relevant NCB surveillance material and the circumstances surrounding the grant and continuation of Y+ security, be independently investigated by the CBI.
In addition, an FIR has now been registered against Aaditya Thackeray among the persons in relation to serious allegations of gang rape, murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction/suppression of evidence and the subsequent cover-up. In these circumstances, serious questions arise as to the justification for continuing State-sponsored Y+ security for him at public expense. The representation therefore seeks an immediate and objective review of the continuation of such security, particularly when Satish Salian and material witnesses have sought adequate protection.
Commissioner Deven Bharati’s responsibility sought to be examined.
Police Inaction Despite Prior Warning Can Attract Criminal Liability: Role of Officers Must Be Probed Under Sections 107/109 and 120-B IPC
The representation places particular emphasis on the responsibility of present Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharati, along with former Commissioner Vivek Phansalkar and every superior or subordinate officer who dealt with security requests, complaints, evidence or the earlier proceedings.
It states that their individual acts and omissions should be scrutinised and that complaints regarding threats cannot be treated as routine representations when serious offences are under investigation and allegations involve politically influential persons and police officials. The representation consequently asks authorities to preserve the present and previous security complaints as contemporaneous evidence of threat perception.
Its warning is particularly significant: if any attack, disappearance, suspicious death or other untoward incident occurs involving Satish Salian, his advocates or a material witness, investigators should examine not merely those directly responsible for the incident but also the conduct of public servants who had prior knowledge of the alleged threats and nevertheless knowingly failed to provide necessary protection. Sections 107 and 120-B IPC: liability cannot be presumed, but omission sought to be investigated
The representation specifically asks that, in such circumstances, the acts and omissions of responsible public servants including Commissioner of Police Sh. Deven Bharati be investigated under Sections 107 and 120-B IPC and other applicable provisions.
Under Section 107 IPC, abetment can be committed not only by an overt act but also through an “illegal omission” where a person intentionally aids the commission of an offence. Abetment by conspiracy likewise requires an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. Section 120-B separately makes criminal conspiracy punishable. The Supreme Court has recognised that participation in a conspiracy may, depending upon the evidence, be inferred from acts and illegal omissions committed in furtherance of a common design.
Therefore, where a police officer, despite prior knowledge of a specific and serious threat and despite being legally required to take preventive or protective action, deliberately fails to take the necessary action, such inaction cannot automatically be treated as mere negligence. If the evidence establishes that the illegal omission was intentional and was intended to facilitate the offence, or was in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, the officer’s liability for abetment and/or conspiracy may arise under Sections 107/109 and 120-B IPC, along with other applicable provisions.
Deven Bharati and other senior officers: The representation specifically seeks scrutiny of the individual acts and omissions of present Commissioner Deven Bharati, former Commissioner Vivek Phansalkar, and every superior/subordinate officer who dealt with complaints, evidence, SIT proceedings, security requests or the subsequent investigation.
