Sanjeevani Case: Rajasthan HC Asks SOG Not To Arrest Union Min Shekhawat Without Prior Approval

The HC also barred the agency from filing any charge sheet against him sans previous approval of this court.

Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. (File Photo)

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court on Friday directed the state's Special Operations Group not to arrest Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat in connection with the Sanjeevani Credit Cooperative Society case without previous approval of the court.

The HC also barred the agency from filing any charge sheet against him sans previous approval of this court.

Justice Farjand Ali granted relief to Shekhawat here while observing that there were submissions to be made on behalf of both parties which required the matter to be heard at length and deferred the hearing till January 8.

While providing liberty to the agency to continue to investigate the matter, the court directed it to issue notice to Shekhawat at least 20 days before if he is required for investigation as he is a sitting Member of Parliament and a public figure who may have several professional commitments.

The direction came during the hearing of an application by Shekhawat seeking a stay on further investigation as well as filing of a charge sheet during the pendency of his main petition in which he challenged the filing of FIR and sought transfer of the case to the CBI.

Arguing in support of the plea to transfer the investigation to the CBI, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the matter fell under the purview of the Banning of Un-regulated Deposits Act, 2019 which is a Special Act and the state police lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the matter.

Claiming that the petitioner has been framed in the present matter out of political malice, the counsel argued that he has neither been summoned by the investigating agency nor has he been named as an accused in any of the four charge sheets filed in respect of the FIR.

The respondent counsel, however, objected to the stay application citing the enormity of the crime and the influential status of the petitioner.

However, observing that neither the petitioner has ever been summoned in the period spanning over more than four years from filing of the FIR nor has any notice been served on him in this period, the court accepted the application.

The court also pointed out that had the offences been found proved, a notice under Section 41 of CrPC could also have been served, which has not been done in the present matter till this day either. 

(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Excpet for the headline, no editing has been done in the body by ABP Live.)