Lack of data hindering investigation on Indian jailed in Saudi Arabia

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The investigating officer in the case of Shailesh Kumar, the Indian national from Mangaluru who is in a Saudi Arabian prison, informed the High Court on Wednesday that the investigation is not progressing due to the unavailability of required data.

The bench of Krishna S Dixit is hearing a petition filed by Kavitha, the wife of Shailesh Kumar who has alleged that the police in Mangaluru did not complete the investigation in the complaint against a fake Facebook profile of her husband leading to his imprisonment in a foreign country.

Shailesh Kumar was convicted and imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, where he was working, for alleged derogatory posts against the King of Saudi Arabia and Islam.

His wife, Kavitha, has petitioned the High Court claiming that the posts, made on February 12 and 13, 2020, were made from a fake profile on Facebook.

He was arrested and jailed on February 23, 2020 and is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence. S Shyam Prasad | NT Bengaluru The High Court has refused to quash a Lokayukta case against an officer of the Town Municipal Council who purchased dustbins for the office at ten times the actual price.

“The allegations prima facie demonstrate clear case of corrupt practice and misappropriation of funds of the public exchequer,” a division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice CM Poonacha said in their judgment dismissing the petition filed by I Basavaraj, the chief officer, Town Municipal Council, Channagiri, Davanagere.

Basavaraj had approached the HC with the petition in 2020 seeking to quash the re por t filed against him by the Upa Lokayukta on October 10, 2018.

The report rendered a preliminary finding regarding the commission of certain acts which amounted to misconduct. The Government had subsequently issued an order entrusting the enquiry to the Lokayukta.

The allegations against Basavaraj, the HC noted “are that in respect of Dust Bin items, which are available in the market at the rate of Rs.20/- to Rs.30/-, the same has been purchased at the cost of Rs.203/- and in respect of items which costs anywhere between Rs.300/- to Rs.400/-, has been purchased at Rs.3,100.”

The HC said that there was no reason to interfere in the case.

“On perusal of Annexure-B, it is seen that the competent authority has applied its mind to the facts. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground which warrants interference and grant of relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits stands rejected.”

However, the HC said that its observations rejecting the petition are not a pronouncement on the merits of the case.

“It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition only and all defences are left open to be raised by the petitioner in the enquiry and the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as a pronouncement on the merits of the matter,” the Court concluded. (WP 7578/2020)