IPL Fixing: IPL investigator makes a shocking revelation about this top Indian cricketer was in touch with a well known bookie!
IPL Fixing: IPL investigator makes a shocking revelation about this top Indian cricketer was in touch with a well known bookie!
B B Misra who is lead investigator by the apex court in the IPL corruption probe in 2013, has now broken his silence. He revealed that the top Indian cricketer who was the part of 2011 World Cup winning squad was in touch with a well known bookie.
Those was the days when the top Indian cricketer leading up to an international match during the 2008-09 season. He also claimed that there is the recorded conversation between the senior police investigator appointed by the Supreme Court.
The senior police investigator opens up and cited that bookie was “willing” to give him evidence but backed out.
According to the reports of Indian Express IPL investigator BB Misra cited that “There is one such instance related to an international match that was played in India. But I could not probe that instance to its logical conclusion. That is what I am suggesting. This thing happened during an international cricket match, probably in the run-up to the match. Just a day or two before the match. It happened in 2008-09.”
Asked about the evidence, Misra said: “It was a phone conversation (between the player and the bookie) that was recorded. It would have taken a lot more time (beyond) October 31. There are two voices on the telephone. Allegedly one is that of the player and the other one is of the bookie. If I have to investigate, I have to take voice samples of the player and the voice samples of the bookie. Send it for forensic opinion.
"That takes a month. And then, why do I have to do it when it was not part of my charter? It could have been done if we had more time…We didn’t get an occasion for the player and the bookie to be confronted. I managed to speak to the bookie. He did say he was in touch with the player,” he said.
“I would have confronted the player with the information I got from the bookie. But (that) evidence didn’t come from the bookie though I knew the evidence existed, I could not pursue it. I knew of this specific instance where the bookie had confided in somebody else, I got that information, the bookie accepted that information before me also, he was willing to give the evidence but in the last minute he decided not to.”