Kolkata Police wanted info on our 'investigation plan': CBI officials
New Delhi: The Kolkata Police, which is locked in a bitter tussle with the CBI, wanted information on the "investigation plan" of the agency officials, who were detained for a few hours at a city police station, CBI officials claimed Monday.
Speaking to PTI, a senior CBI official requesting anonymity said the Kolkata Police had also refused to acknowledge the request of the CBI seeking cooperation in carrying out its investigation at the residence of Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar on Sunday.
The Kolkata Police officials kept pressurising the CBI team, which was forcefully taken to the Shakespeare Sarani police station, to reveal "the investigation plan", the official claimed.
"Due to deliberate, forceful, physical obstruction caused by the Kolkata police, the CBI could not complete the proceedings and had to return," the agency official said.
The agency has written thrice seeking presence of Kumar, who was member of the Special Investigation Team of the Kolkata Police probing the chit fund scam, the official said.
The first notice to the Kolkata police commissioner was sent on October 18, 2017 to appear for questioning next day but he cited law and order duties of the ensuing festive season.
The next notice was issued on October 23, 2017 but again he excused from the questioning.
The CBI had sent third notice on December 8, 2018 but he responded saying the queries can be sent to him and he will reply.
Not getting any "positive response" from him, a team of 11 CBI officials along with two independent witnesses and support staff had approached the residence of Kumar at 5.45 pm Sunday where they found the gate closed, another official said.
After that, some of the CBI officers went to the Shakespeare Sarani police station, where they reached at 6 pm to inform the local police about the visit and seeking cooperation for which they sought an acknowledgement, the officials said.
But the officer concerned refused them any acknowledgement, the official said.
Meanwhile, the CBI Deputy SP Tathagat Vardan, who was outside the residence of the police commissioner, inquired from a police personnel guarding a mini door adjacent to the closed main gate, if Kumar was inside.
Upon inquiry, the police personnel took Vardan to a police vehicle on the road and asked him to get inside, the officials said.
When Vardan told him that he cannot be forced like that, he was pushed inside the vehicle and restrained by the police personnel inside in such a way that he could not move, the official said.
Vardan was also taken to the police station where CBI officers had earlier gone to intimate.
Inspite of repeated requests to give acknowledgement, the local police refused to do so, the officials said.
The team then called two of its Superintendent of Police, Partha Mukherjee of Economic Offences -I and Pramod Kumar Manjhi of Anti-Corruption Branch, Bhubaneswar, who was on a tour to Kolkata, to come for their aid.
Both the officers reached the police station and insisted that acknowledgement should be provided and police should help the CBI team to complete its investigation.
Two Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) of Kolkata Police, Muralidhar Sharma and Miraz Khalid, were also approached by the CBI team but they remained "non cooperative", the officials said.
The DCPs asked the CBI to wait for some time and assured that suitable information would be provided after a clearance was taken from superior officers, the officials said.
The officers at the police station asked the CBI to "divulge plan of investigation" else meet dire consequences, the officials claimed.
The ordeal finally got over when the CBI was asked to leave the police station. They reached their Nizam Palace office in the city where they completed the "memorandum" proceedings at 11.55 pm, noting details of the developments of the evening.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
