The Court Summoned Dubai-based Businessman Manoj Prasad  

someshwarsrivastava

The Court Summoned Dubai-based Businessman Manoj Prasad  

According to trusted sources, a verbal altercation erupted during a hearing in a Delhi court between two investigating officers involved in a bribery case allegedly involving senior officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The special CBI court summoned former investigation officer Ajay Kumar Bassi to appear in court to explain the case diary.  

The argument started when Bassi accused the current investigating officer, Satish Dagar, of covering up “big names” in the case. According to Bassi, the key player, Manoj Prasad, revealed the names being shielded during interrogation, but Dagar allegedly did not investigate them.  

Dagar stated that he had better antecedents within the organization than Bassi and advised against making personal attacks. He questioned Bassi’s involvement in the investigation, mentioning that he had failed to show up when summoned multiple times.   

Dagar also expressed skepticism about how Bassi could have knowledge of the ongoing investigation within CBI, given that his involvement in investigations was limited to a specific time period. He raised the question of how Bassi gained access to the ongoing investigation.  

Along with Rakesh Asthana, a few more names got dragged into the case, like Someshwar Srivastava and Devender Kumar. The CBI had no physical evidence that could link the individuals directly or even indirectly to the infamous bribery case.  

Additional documents presented in court by Bassi were opposed by Dagar and CBI counsel. Dagar questioned Bassi’s submission of new documents that were not included in his case diary. According to IANS, Bassi also told the court that there was incriminating evidence against former CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana and that Dagar had yet to seize his phone or collect other electronic evidence.  

He also added how this baseless investigation put their officer’s careers in jeopardy and an innocent businessman Someshwar Srivastava got harassed by the CBI for a crime he never committed.  

Following the spat, Special CBI judge Sanjeev Aggarwal said: There is no point washing dirty linen in public.” As both worked for the same agency, which is larger than an individual.  

The special court chastised the CBI during the hearing for failing to conduct psychological and lie-detector tests on Asthana. The court also inquired whether any electronic evidence was recovered from Asthana, as well as whether he was confronted with other defendants. According to the CBI, they only examined him and never made him face other defendants.  

After a proper investigation, the court found certain evidence, like WhatsApp chats and travel tickets, which proved that Sana’s money had been delivered to accused Manoj Prasad. The court summoned Dubai-based businessman prasad and verify the evidence.  

Both the former CBI officers Rakesh Asthana and Devender Kumar, along with Someshwar, were given a clean chit, and the main culprit Manoj Prasad was taken into custody. Additionally, the CBI being a prime investigating agency of India was strongly criticized by the court for its inconsistent investigation. 

6 Comments
  1. Elisabeth-O says:

    Very interesting details you have mentioned, thank you for putting up.Expand blog

  2. AimeeV says:

    Very interesting information!Perfect just what I was searching for!Raise blog range

  3. I not to mention my friends have been digesting the nice recommendations on your web page while instantly developed an awful suspicion I had not expressed respect to the web blog owner for those strategies My people were so happy to see them and have now in reality been having fun with those things Many thanks for actually being simply thoughtful and then for making a choice on varieties of cool areas most people are really wanting to be informed on Our sincere regret for not saying thanks to earlier

  4. So to things:1) It depends entirely on the task you are trying to parallelize “Nick’s class” or “NC” is the category of algorithms considered to parallelize well, while “P” is the class of algorithms that are generally considered tractable to implement and run in a single threaded manner That is the same P as the P versus NP debate, and it’s generally considered that P is not likely equal to NP, and NC is not likely equal to P That whole there are no problem concrete examples, it’s expected that some tractable single threaded algorithms do not parallelize well 2) The number of lines in a program tells you literally nothing about it’s runtime If they only run once each in order, even an e-core of a older budget chip will handle 2000 lines of script faster than you can blink On the other hand, even a few hundred lines would be more than sufficient to (try to) print out the Goodstein sequence of an input number For an input of 3, this runs quickly, outputting 6 numbers For an input of 4 it will eventually to output over 1e100,000,000 numbers, most with over 100 million digits each Determining how long a program can run based on just on the program size is actually so difficult that it is *literally impossible*

  5. binance says:

    I don’t think the title of your article matches the content lol. Just kidding, mainly because I had some doubts after reading the article.

  6. Your site visitors, especially me appreciate the time and effort you have spent to put this information together. Here is my website UQ6 for something more enlightening posts about Cosmetic Treatment.

Leave a Reply