The Bombay High Court has expressed grave concerns over allegations of extortion tied to a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act case, involving a lawyer and an investigating officer from the Mira-Bhayandar and Vasai-Virar Police Commissionerate. The court has demanded a detailed response from the Commissioner of Police, stressing the need for a thorough examination of the serious accusations presented.
During a hearing involving several accused in a 2021 Palghar case, allegations surfaced against the investigating officer, Niwas Garale, and advocate Kiran Binwade. The accused claimed they were extorted for Rs 8.5 lakh to avoid harassment, with funds allegedly directed to Binwade’s wife’s account. These claims were supported by WhatsApp conversations and bank statements presented by advocate Tushar Lavhate, representing the accused.
A bench consisting of Justices AS Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale highlighted the urgency and severity of the issue, stating, “If there is even an iota of truth in these allegations, then it represents a serious concern for our criminal justice system.” The judges mandated that the Commissioner of Police must personally address the matter and provide a comprehensive affidavit in response to the plea filed by the accused seeking the cancellation of their FIR, which includes charges of kidnapping, rape of a minor, criminal intimidation, and harboring an offender.
The controversy deepened during the proceedings as it was revealed that despite earlier reports of an absconding accused, he had in fact been granted interim anticipatory bail by another High Court bench. This development casts further doubt on the ongoing investigation and procedural integrity, especially given allegations that the investigating officer facilitated the disappearance of the victim to obstruct her testimony.
Moreover, Lavhate argued that the victim was over 18 at the time of the alleged crime, accusing the police of falsifying documents to misrepresent her age as a minor. This claim, if substantiated, could severely undermine the legitimacy of the charges under the POCSO Act.
