Saradha scam probe: Rajeev Kumar had alleged political interference by 'gentleman' to victimise him, in letter to Alok Verma

A letter written on 27 October, 2017 by incumbent Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar to the then CBI director Alok Verma has resurfaced indicating that the probing agency may not have followed due protocol and has been operating cumbersomely while investigating the multi-crore Saradha Ponzi scam even linking it with political vendetta. [caption id=“attachment_6021671” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar. Image courtesy News18[/caption] On Sunday night, a CBI team was prevented by the Kolkata Police from arresting Kumar and members of the investigating agency got detained instead before they were allowed to leave. Kumar had written the letter to Verma objecting to the manner he was summoned by the investigating officer of the agency. Significantly, Kumar was heading the Bidhannagar Police Commissariat when its detective department was investigating the scam before it was taken over by the CBI upon orders from the Supreme Court. “No effort was made by investigating agency to seek answer to any doubt, which they might have had, about the role of investigation officer or supervising officers. It will not be out of place to mention that two Inspectors who were associated with investigation of this case were examined u/s 160 CrPc. Surprisingly no other senior officer has been sent such notice. Next notice has been sent to the undersigned,” Kumar wrote in his letter. The Kolkata Police commissioner also suggested that the notice to appear in person before the investigating officer was politically motivated. “I would also like to bring to your notice the fact that about a year ago one public comment was made by one senior leader of a political party, against which a criminal and civil defamation was filed. There are strong reasons to believe that this is being done to satisfy the gentleman,” he said in the letter. It may be noted that Kumar filed a defamation case against BJP general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya in February 2017 for accusing him of destroying evidence in the Saradha chit fund scam.

A 1989 batch IPS officer, Kumar further wrote, “You would appreciate that if Commissioners of Police are served notices under Section 160 of CrPC notices in c/w cases which were supervised by them without even trying to make basic correspondence or ascertaining the exact circumstances is like opening Pandora’s Box. I am in no way suggesting that investigation in all aspects of case should not be done, but basic decorum of service needs to be maintained. In case, if the investigating agency is not satisfied with written reply given by the officer concerned, right to serve notice under Section 160 of CrPC always exists.” Suspecting that the then team of the CBI was pursuing an agenda rather than investigating the case, Kumar said, “May I request you to kindly get the material/evidence collected by investigating officer on this case (RC04/S/2014 u/s 120B/420/406/409 IPC, against Sudipta Sen and others) by another senior officer who is not part of the present team, investigating the case, which am afraid, seems to be pursuing an agenda rather than carrying out unbiased investigation.” How Verma responded to Kumar’s letter is not know yet.