Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 15: Contrary to the claims by the Bollywood sources that actor Shah Rukh Khan had refused to bribe the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to get his son Aryan Khan released in the infamous drugs-on-cruise case, an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has found that the NCB officials led by its former zonal director Sameer Wankhede had demanded a bribe of Rs 25 crores and after bargaining settled at Rs 18 crores and had also taken Rs 50 lakhs as token amount from the Bollywood actor.
According to an FIR filed by the CBI, the independent witness K P Gosavi had acted as the go-between to demand the bribe money from the actor and demanded Rs 25 crore from Shah Rukh Khan by threatening to falsely implicate Aryan Khan in the drug case and after negotiation, deal was settled for Rs 18 crore and they took Rs 50 lakh as a token amount.
Bollywood sources had claimed that Shah Rukh Khan had refused to give bribe to get his son released insisting that Aryan Khan was innocent and he had faith in the Indian judiciary to get justice.
A 2008-batch IRS officer, Wankhede had led a team of officers to raid the ship off the Mumbai coast on the night of October 2, 2021. NCB had claimed to have seized 13 gm of cocaine, 5 gm of mephedrone, 21 gm of marijuana, 22 pills of MDMA and Rs 1.33 lakh cash in the raid, and arrested 17 people, including Aryan Khan.
“We have registered an FIR on May 11 against Sameer Wankhede, the then Zonal Director of NCB (Mumbai Zone Unit); Vishwa Vijay Singh, then Superintendent (NCB); Ashish Ranjan Prasad, then Intelligence Officer of Mumbai Zonal Unit (NCB); K P Gosavi and Sanvile D’Souza (alleged witness) and other unknown persons.
“On May 12, CBI conducted searches at 29 locations across Mumbai, Delhi, Ranchi, Lucknow, Chennai and Guwahati which led to recovery of incriminating material,” a CBI spokesperson said. The CBI probe found that officials led by Sameer Wankhede created an impression that Gosavi was an NCB official in the proceedings against Aryan Khan in the case.
Wankhede, who hit headlines after the arrest of Aryan Khan and others is facing allegations of corruption and criminal misconduct. In its FIR, the CBI has flagged the officer’s foreign trips and sale and purchase of expensive wrist watches.
Enquiries into the allegations against Wankhede and Ashish Ranjan, then an intelligence officer with NCB, “could not sufficiently justify their acquired assets as per their declared income,” the FIR says. Wankhede, it adds, has “not properly explained his foreign visits and had apparently mis-declared the expenditure on his foreign travels.”
KP Gosavi is the witness in the drugs-on-cruise case whose selfie with Aryan Khan following his arrest, sparking questions on how an individual not employed with NCB was allowed access to the accused. The CBI’s FIR notes that Gosavi “was allowed to be present in the company of accused persons and even allowed to come to the NCB office after the raid which is against the norms for an independent witness.”
Wankhede, the CBI has alleged, had asked Vishwa Vijay Singh, the superintendent of NCB, “to let KP Gosavi handle the accused while taking him to NCB office thereby allowing a freehand to KP Gosavi and others in order to create a visual impression of KP Gosavi having the custody of the accused and escorting/dragging him towards NCB Mumbai office.”
Many of these allegations were earlier made by former Maharashtra minister and NCP leader Nawab Malik, currently in jail on corruption charges, and Prabhakar Sail, a witness in the drugs-on-cruise case who died of a heart attack last year.
Wankhede was transferred to the Directorate General of Taxpayer Services in Chennai last year. Following the recent CBI raids at his home, he said he “was being punished for being a patriot.” “I am getting rewarded for being a patriot, yesterday 18 CBI officials raided my residence and searched it for more than 12 hours while my wife and children were present in the house. They found ₹ 23,000 and four property papers. These assets were acquired before I joined the service,” he said.
Following his arrest, Aryan Khan spent 26 days in jail before the NCB cleared him of charges, citing “lack of sufficient evidence.” Amid the huge uproar, a separate probe was launched into the allegations against Wankhede and his team.
The CBI lodged an FIR after they received a complaint from Kapil, a superintendent in the vigilance branch of NCB.
SET has also found that Wankhede in the capacity of the immediate supervisory officer had directed to take Gosavi and Prabhakar Sail as the independent witness in the proceedings against the accused and directed Singh to let Gosavi handle the accused while taking him to NCB Office.
“The enquiry further shows that the accused persons were brought to the NCB office in the private vehicle of the independent witness K P Gosavi. It appeared that the presence of the independent witness Gosavi around accused persons was created intentionally in such a manner so as to give an impression that Gosavi was an NCB personnel even though there were NCB personnel to handle the custody of the accused persons…Gosavi was allowed to be in the company of the accused persons and even allowed to come to the NCB office after the raid which is against the norms of an independent witness. In this manner, KP Gosavi took the freedom and clicked selfies and recorded the voice note of an accused,” the inquiry report said.
“It was this position that allowed KP Gosavi and his aide Sanvile D’Souza amongst others to enter into a conspiracy to extort Rs 25 crore from the family members of Aryan Khan by threatening them with the accusation of offences of possession of narcotics substances. This amount was finally settled for Rs 18 crore. A token amount of Rs 50 lakh as bribe money was also taken by KP Gosavi and D’Souza but later a part of this amount was returned back to them,” the report added.
The complainant said in his complaint that the inquiry conducted by SET has revealed that on October 2, 2021, the names of certain suspects were dropped from the first information I-note and the names of certain other accused were included subsequently through modification to suit the proceedings. “The initial I-Note had 27 names, but the modified I-Note has only 10 names. A number of passengers were examined at the departure gate of MPT (Mumbai Port Trust), by the IO Prasad as per provisions of section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985. During this, one of the suspects Arbaaz A Merchant accepted that he is having Charas hidden inside his shoes. Even, the Charas in the zip lock pouch was taken out from his shoes voluntarily and was handed over to IO Prasad,” the FIR stated.
“The search of many other persons whose names were available with the NCB Officials – as suspected persons –, was done but the same was not documented. A few persons who were suspects were also allowed to leave without any documentation. Siddarth Shah who had the alleged role in supply of Charas to Arbaaz was also allowed to walk free by the NCB even though Shah had accepted that he got money from Arbaaz to buy Charas for him and there were incriminating chats showing that he himself was consuming drugs,” the complainant alleged.
The matters of allegations of criminal misconduct and corrupt practices of Wankhede and Prasad independently were further enquired into and they could not sufficiently justify their acquired assets as per their declared income.
“It has also come to the notice of Vigilance Branch of NCB that Wankhede has not properly explained his foreign visits and had apparently mis-declared the expenditure on his foreign travels. He has also not declared the source of his foreign visits properly and it was also found that Wankhede has indulged himself in sale and purchase of expensive wrist watches with a private entity without intimating the department,” the FIR stated.
The SET during their inquiry recorded the statements of different individuals in Mumbai and Delhi. “The SET has also examined the relevant officers concerned as well as the relevant witnesses/persons related to the case. The SET also collected and analysed the documents in the case file no. 94 of 2021 of Mumbai and some other cases also as the same were connected with the instant Case. The SET also collected various technical evidences to prove the facts of the case,” the FIR stated.