Exposed: CBI role in murder cover-up of RTI activist Satish Shetty; Investigating officer blames agency director Anil Sinha

In April 2016, six years after the murder of Pune-based RTI activist Satish Shetty, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) finally managed to arrest two former cops for alleged conspiracy.

In a case that saw several cover-ups, destruction and manipulation of evidence, and a conspiracy involving local cops, an audio file of a CBI official puts the probe agency in the dock.

This official not only claims that Virendra Mhaiskar, a real-estate baron and one of the accused in the murder, met then CBI director Ranjit Sinha, but also blames the topmost rung of the agency, including current director Anil Sinha, for allegedly trying to derail the probe made by their own investigators.

The audio clip, in possession of dna and Zee Business, was secretly recorded by Shetty's brother Sandeep, when he met investigating officer Susheel Prasad Singh in July 2014. In the clip, Singh, an additional superintendent of police with the CBI, talks about a meeting that had taken place with then CBI director Ranjit Sinha and special director Anil Sinha (now director). Singh claims that the meeting was a monthly one and was aimed to brief senior officials about the progress of the case being investigated.

Singh (who was transferred from CBI the same year), in his conversation with Sandeep, recorded in a mobile phone, talks about how he was allegedly pressurised to file the closure report even after him seeking more time for analysis.

Singh, while talking to Sandeep, says that he needed more time for analysis as 550 persons were examined, 30 places were raided, 36 persons underwent polygraph tests, call data records of 200 people were to be analysed and 50 other murderers were questioned.

Singh says he told his seniors that "either take the case away from me" or give me more time and if he is being forced to file the closure report, "I would resign in front of the press" and expose everyone.

Singh, in his conversation, also accuses joint director Keshav Kumar and then CBI SP, Vidya Kulkarni, of being in the know. He also accuses Kumar of thwarting the progress of the case.

To a question by Sandeep about the alleged 'negative' nature of senior CBI officials, Singh responds: "Since the SD (then special director Anil Sinha) has come, I feel, I mean I had a suspicion. But when I was called for a meeting in February, that time I realised that something was wrong. Why the hurry (to file closure report). They were asking why are you taking too much time. No one is asking about Nikhil Rane case".

Later in the conversation, Sandeep asks: "Did you not show them the facts," to which Singh responds: "I told them about the facts for two hours. The special director spoke to me angrily and asked me how was I talking so much and that I had introduced the "land angle" (into the case) and that I was prolonging the case.

"So I said I should be given an opportunity to speak and then I lectured them for two hours. I had made a big power point presentation and spent Rs 2,000 from my own pocket...They didn't even see the presentation...This was in February and when I sensed something was wrong, I wrote a proposal to arrest (the accused) but we don't have any value..."

Singh here is indicating how the alleged land deal by IRB might have been the prime motive behind the murder and how the current director was unhappy with the angle being brought into the probe.

The conversation supposedly took place in July 2014 and the closure report was filed a month later. Sandeep had moved Bombay High court and submitted the audio clip and asked for a re-investigation of the case. This is how the court responded: "There is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI. We are, therefore, not inclined to stay the proceedings, which are pending before the sessions court since it is seized of the matter and it will be heard after going through the closure report.

"The sessions court is bound to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. We, however, feel that the matter may be kept pending. In the meantime, Respondent No 4 CBI official Susheel Prasad Singh) may file their reply, pointing out the steps taken by them during the investigation and in respect of the allegations made in paragraph H and I of the petition. We feel that such a direction is necessary."

Shetty was stabbed to death near his house in 2010 not far from his Panchvati Colony home in Talegaon Dabhade. Shetty was the Pune district coordinator of the Bhrastachar Virodhi Dakshata Samiti, an organisation fighting against corruption. Five people were arrested, but all got bail later.

The case was transferred to CBI on April 6, 2010, after Sandeep Shetty had moved the HC, and the agency filed a closure report on August 11, 2014.

Interestingly, the closure report was filed three days after the CBI was directed to investigate an FIR registered by Satish Shetty on October 15, 2009, accusing 13 people, including Virendra Mhaiskar (Chairman and managing director, IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd), accusing them of acquiring nearly 1,100 acres of fertile government and private land in Maval taluk (near Pune) by forging documents and manipulating land records.

A month later, Shetty asked for police protection, citing danger to his life, and, on January 13, 2010, he was hacked to death. Sandeep now asks if the land deal was given as the prime motive behind the murder, why was a closure report filed in the first place.

Later in the conversation, Sandeep asks Singh: "Will the IRB guy (Virendra Mhaiskar), can he approach higher ups (of CBI) without political support?"

"The day director (Ranjit Sinha) came, he (Mhaiskar) met with him. Why are you only talking about political support," asks Singh.

Sandeep asks: "He (Mhaiskar) met the director?"
"Yes, back then," responds Singh.
Sandeep further says: "He (Mhaiskar) met the special director"?

Singh responds: "The director, the director", referring to Ranjit Sinha.

Singh, in his conversation with Sandeep, also accuses senior CBI officials of not being fearful of the government and of allegedly taking money from ministers.

In its response, the probe agency denied the allegation stating: "It is strongly denied that any meeting took place between Shri Virendra Mhaiskar with the afore-mentioned senior CBI officers. It is strongly denied that any CBI officer issued any direction to absolve anyone in the case and the decision to file a closure report in the Satish Shetty murder case was taken strictly on merits and based on evidence on record".

"The decision to reopen the Satish Shetty murder case was taken by the competent authority in CBI on 17th January, 2015, and was placed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at the time of hearing on 9th March, 2015. It is totally incorrect to state that the decision to reopen the case was in any way linked with the filing of the Protest Petition (by Sandeep Shetty), "CBI said further.

Responding to a query regarding the audio clip, Virendra Mhaiskar responded in an email: "We are a responsible corporate (house) and I am a law-abiding citizen of this country." He further wrote: "These allegations have been repeatedly raised in the past by the media. I have fully cooperated with the investigating authorities and it is only after a full, free, complete and thorough investigation, which continued for more than 5 years, that a closure report has been filed by the appropriate investigating authority."

To an email sent to the CBI by the Zee Business team on March 31, the agency response came on April 6, after the arrest of former Pune cop BR Andhalkar. The second arrest, that of an assistant police inspector, came four days later. Both of them are accused of shielding the real killers.