Mumbai: Why have you not arrested wanted bookie yet, HC asks two DCPs

Updated: Sep 04, 2019, 08:29 IST | Suraj Ojha | Mumbai

Cops summoned to court for their 'lackadaisical attitude' in the cheating and forgery case against Anil Jaisinghani

Anil Jaisinghani
Anil Jaisinghani

The Bombay High Court has summoned two Deputy Commissioners (zone1 and 10) of Mumbai police on September 4, for their alleged lackadaisical attitude in the cheating and forgery case filed against wanted IPL bookie, Anil Jaisinghani alias Sunny. The HC, on August 28, was hearing the writ petition filed by Kishore Keswani. The bench was annoyed that neither the Investigating Officer (IO) nor the Public Prosecutor (PP) was present at the same time, said Sanjana Pardeshi, the counsel for Keswani.

"The matter was supposed to start at 11:05 am, the IO was present but PP FR Shaikh was not available. The matter came up for hearing again at 3pm the same day. Then the PP was there but IO was not. After some time he arrived. The bench then asked, 'why are you both not available at the same time?" Pardeshi told mid-day.

'Police did nothing'

Pardeshi said in court, "The matter has not been listed for 11 months and the police have done absolutely nothing. The police also say that he (Jaisinghani) is not available in Mumbai." She said they showed the court a copy of the petition filed by Jaisinghani and an undertaking filed by him in the High Court of Ahmedabad, which were both notarised in Andheri east.

Keswani said, "Still the police claimed that Jaisinghani is not in Mumbai. The court was annoyed and called the DCPs on September 4." The PP then asked for more time to file the reports as he claimed the IO was newly transferred to Azad Maidan police station. "The court said it had appointed DCPs on July, 18, 2018, to look into the case, so there was no need for an IO to file the reports," said Pardeshi.

Cops didn't attach property

According to Pardeshi, the police, on October 10, 2018, made a statement before the HC that they had filed an application for the attachment of the Shirdi property (a hotel) of Jaisinghani but the magistrate refused to pass an attachment order, saying it also stood in the name of his wife (who is deceased).

"The sessions court on January 11, 2019 set aside his order and directed police to attach part of the property that is in Jaisinghani's name. However, they have not attached it," said Pardeshi.

Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

Sign up for all the latest news, top galleries and trending videos from


Maharashtra Elections 2019: Pankaja Munde and Dhananjay Munde battle it out for Parli

This website uses cookie or similar technologies, to enhance your browsing experience and provide personalised recommendations. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. OK