Wankhede told the Bombay High Court he didn’t ask for or take any money from Shah Rukh Khan to let Aryan Khan go in the Cordelia cruise drug case. Aabad Ponda, Wankhede’s lawyer, said the IRS officer wants the May 2023 CBI FIR that accuses him of corruption and bribery dismissed.
Defense Arguments and Court Proceedings
Ponda explained to the judges Shree Chandrashekhar (leading the panel) and Suman Shyam that the CBI doesn’re have anything to connect Wankhede to asking for or receiving 25 crore rupees. He pointed out that the NCB searched the Cordelia cruise because of a tip and followed the law when making the arrests.
The court was told that Aryan Khan and others were held after the raid. Ponda asked the judges to think about the fact that the FIR doesn’t have any solid evidence and to consider how the NCB acted. The hearing was stopped and will continue the next day.
What the CBI FIR Alleges and the Accused Named
The FIR, which was filed in May 2023, accuses Wankhede, Vishwa Vijay Singh (a former NCB Superintendent of Police), Ashish Ranjan (an intelligence officer), and Kiran Gosavi and Sanville D’Souza (private citizens) of the crime. The CBI claims the four of them asked Shah Rukh Khan for 25 crore rupees to make sure his son was cleared in the 2021 drug investigation.
The documents say this initial request was lowered to 18 crore rupees. The FIR lists criminal conspiracy (under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code), threatening to use extortion (section 388), and crimes against the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Timeline of the Cruise Raid and Investigations
The Cordelia cruise was raided off the coast of Mumbai on October 2, 2021 and Aryan Khan was arrested the next day. The NCB eventually filed charges against 14 people, but their own Special Investigation Team said on May 27, 2022, that Aryan Khan was innocent of being involved in a big drug dealing operation and didn’t have any evidence to prove he was.
An internal investigation by the NCB’s own monitoring team found that the correct procedures weren’t followed, with some names being added to the official information at the last minute and problems with how things were seized and statements were taken. These findings led the NCB to give the details to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and they then started the FIR.
Parallel Probes and Enforcement Directorate Action
After the FIR, the Enforcement Directorate began a money laundering investigation into Wankhede, because of money supposedly gained from the crimes mentioned. This second investigation shows that when police officers are accused of corruption, both criminal and financial investigations can happen at the same time.
Wankhede is fighting both the criminal FIR and everything related to it, saying there isn’t evidence that can be used in court and asking the court to review the situation. The courts will look at the official records of what happened, documents from the time, and what witnesses say to decide if the FIR should be kept.
Broader Implications for Law Enforcement and Public Trust
This whole thing reveals disagreements between the groups investigating crimes, the internal systems for watching over the police, and how they are supposed to be held responsible. When a high-ranking officer is accused of something, it can make the public lose faith in the agencies fighting drugs, and it makes you wonder about how they are supervised and how open they are.
Law experts say that courts generally need some initial evidence before allowing a case to go to trial. How the High Court rules will probably change how accusations against police officers are looked into and dealt with in the future, and it will be important to keep the correct procedures and the idea of being ruled by laws at the center of the process.
The case will continue to be examined by the court as the hearings go on, to determine if the CBI FIR has enough proof to continue or should be cancelled. People who are following the case say that famous cases get a lot of attention from the public, but the court has to make a decision based on evidence and the law.
