Case against Rahul based on non-existent claims: CBI
New Delhi: CBI on Monday told the Supreme Court that the case of alleged illegal confinement of a girl in which Rahul Gandhi's name was dragged was found to be based on "non-existent" claims.
Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval, who placed the status report of a CBI probe in a sealed cover, said the address and names of the persons, including that of the girl, were "non-existent".
"On verification from various government authorities, including the nagar panchayat and district food and civil supplies inspector, it was confirmed that there was no such address (mentioned in the writ petition) and there exists no record of such persons existing," he said.
The agency also said that habeas corpus petition filed by a former Samajwadi Party MLA from Madhya Pradesh Kishore Samrite, seeking a direction for producing the girl and her parents, was funded by "some others" and his statements have been recorded in this regard.
CBI made these submissions before a bench comprising justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, which was hearing a petition filed by a former MLA challenging Rs 50 lakh fine imposed on him by the Allahabad High Court for approaching it with these allegations.
The High Court on March 7, 2011 had also directed the CBI to register a case against Samrite and to find out as to under what circumstances the PIL was filed.
The apex court bench noted that there were two identical petitions in the High Court and in both of them the petitioners were not the next friend or acquaintances of the victims' family.
He said another identical petition was filed in the High Court and the police had located the persons named as alleged victim, who had recorded their statements denying the incident.
The CBI said Samrit'e petition was based on information down loaded from the websites and during the probe it was found that the those are located in foreign lands and for taking the probe outside its territorial jurisdiction it will take the help of the court here for issuance of letters rogatory.
Raval said that the agency has got the bank statements showing that the how Samrite used to get bank drafts made out of the cash he received for making payment to his lawyers.
Meanwhile, senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for Gandhi said it was a clear case of a sinister campaign to malign the political career of a young and promising leader.
During the last hearing, Samrite had claimed that he filed the petition linking Gandhi at the behest of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state government said exemplary costs of Rs 50 lakh imposed on the former Samajwadi MLA was justified.
Rahul Gandhi had pleaded that a case of perjury and contempt should be initiated against Samrite.
The bench, however, had said that for perjury action a proper application has to be filed as the court was only hearing a limited aspect relating to the case.
In an earlier counter-affidavit, Rahul had submitted that the allegations made against him were "totally false, frivolous, vexatious and are calculated to harm my standing an image."
Rahul had responded to the notice issued by the apex court on April 6 last year on a petition filed by a former MLA challenging Rs 50 lakh fine imposed on him by the Allahabad High Court in an alleged sexual exploitation case against him.
The apex court had also stayed the high court order which had directed a CBI probe against the former legislator. Later Samrite had reportedly filed an affidavit claiming that he had filed the petition in the High Court at the behest of Samajwadi Party.