Mumbai High Court Steps In: Sameer Wankhede Fights 'Malicious' FIR Over Bar License

In a significant development that underscores the ongoing legal skirmishes involving former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede, the Mumbai High Court has formally issued a notice to the state excise department. This directive comes in response to a compelling petition filed by Wankhede himself, challenging a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him concerning alleged irregularities in the renewal of his family's bar license.

Wankhede's legal offensive targets an FIR filed by the state excise department, which he vehemently describes as a "malicious and false prosecution." The crux of the excise department's complaint revolves around the renewal of the license for Hotel Sadhguru, a bar situated in Thane, which was reportedly owned by a partnership firm including Wankhede's family members.

The allegations suggest a breach of protocol, claiming that Wankhede was underage when he originally acquired the license and that his involvement as a government servant further complicated the matter.

However, Wankhede, through his counsel, has presented a robust defense, arguing that the entire FIR lacks jurisdictional merit and is an attempt to unjustly persecute him.

He categorically states that he resigned from the partnership firm that owned the bar in 2017, effectively severing his direct ties to its operations long before the current controversy erupted. Furthermore, Wankhede asserts that the issue at hand pertains solely to the renewal of an existing license, not its initial acquisition.

He clarifies that the license was originally issued in his father's name and was subsequently transferred, and he obtained his share only after he had legally come of age.

The genesis of this legal wrangle can be traced back to a complaint lodged by a social worker. This individual's complaint formed the basis for the excise department's FIR, igniting the present judicial scrutiny.

The allegations put forth by the complainant posited that Wankhede, despite being a serving government officer, allegedly acquired a liquor license when he was a minor, a claim Wankhede's petition vehemently refutes, providing documentation to support his age at the time of his partnership involvement.

With the High Court now formally stepping in and demanding a response from the state excise department, the legal spotlight intensifies on the intricacies of bureaucratic procedures and the challenges faced by individuals under public scrutiny.

The court's notice signals a thorough review of the excise department's actions and the validity of the FIR against Wankhede, promising a closely watched legal battle ahead.