Vadodara, June 1 (IANS) Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Ashok Oza has denied Gujarat Police allegations that he was involved in arranging a fake Intelligence Bureau (IB) verification call to a party worker, claiming instead that he has been falsely implicated and questioned about the party’s internal organisation and finances.

Oza’s statement on Sunday marks the latest development in a controversy that began on May 28 when former Delhi MLA and party leader Durgesh Pathak alleged on social media platform X that Gujarat Police’s IB wing was intimidating AAP workers in the state.

The allegation was later amplified by AAP Convenor Arvind Kejriwal, who said he had personally called the number in question and questioned whether party workers were being subjected to verification and harassment by Intelligence officials.

Following the social media claims, Anand Cyber Crime Police launched an investigation after tracing the phone number cited in the allegations to a person residing in Anand.

Police subsequently announced the arrest of Oza, the President of AAP’s Vadodara city unit, and Nitin Dobariya.

According to police, the investigation found that a call had been made to party worker Keshav Chauhan by a person falsely claiming to be speaking from the “Karelibaug IB Office”.

Investigators alleged that the call was part of a conspiracy arising from internal rivalry within the party and that Oza viewed Chauhan as a political rival after he was assigned organisational responsibilities in Vadodara.

Police also alleged that the call was intended to intimidate Chauhan and force him out of the city.

The arrests triggered a political row, with Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi accusing Kejriwal of spreading false claims.

Sanghavi said the phone number highlighted by AAP belonged to “your own man” and questioned why Kejriwal was portraying the caller as an IB officer.

Responding to the allegations for the first time since his arrest, Oza said the police narrative was fabricated and insisted that he had never instructed anyone to impersonate an IB official.

“I only want to say one thing: the call that was made was a call I made to the IB to ask, ‘What requirement do you have? Our office-bearer Keshav Chauhan was also present on the conference call. I did not make the phone call to say, ‘You do this and call pretending to be from the IB’,” he said.

Oza alleged that after being taken away by police, he was questioned for around two hours by a woman who identified herself as a Police Inspector (PI).

According to him, the questioning centred not on the alleged call but on the party’s organisational structure and sources of funding.

“Setting everything else aside, when I was taken away, a lady came and identified herself as a PI. She spoke with me in a room for two hours and only asked me about the party’s old and new organisational structure,” he said.

Questioning the purpose of the interrogation, Oza added: “Was I taken there so that they could learn what the party organisation was like, what it was earlier and what it is now?”

He also claimed that questions were raised about the party’s finances.

“The lady asked me where our funding in Gujarat comes from, where our Vadodara funding comes from, and where the funds came from for Kejriwal’s stay from May 24 to 26,” Oza said.

Addressing Sanghavi directly, Oza accused the state government of using the case for political purposes.

“Today, I want to ask Harsh Sanghavi directly: do you want to engage in politics by detaining people, threatening people and filing false cases against them?” he said.

Oza also questioned the identity of the officer who allegedly interrogated him.

“Who was Madam Parmar? From no angle did she seem to me to be a PI,” he said.

Rejecting the police allegation that the episode stemmed from internal party rivalry, Oza insisted he had no role in any conspiracy and remained committed to the party.

“There is no conspiracy on my part. I am a loyal member of the AAP and I will always remain loyal,” he said.

The case has been registered at Anand Cyber Crime Police Station under Sections 61(2), 204 and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, which relates to cheating by personation using digital means.

The investigation remains ongoing.

–IANS

mys/khz