Granting anticipatory bail to a man, the Bombay High Court said that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in murder cases.
Justice Bharti Dange said that just because the offence involved is under section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code, it is not imperative for the custodial interrogation of the accused
The Bombay High Court, while granting anticipatory bail to a man, said that only because the case is of murder does not mean that an accused must be interrogated under police custody. The court thus granted the accused anticipatory bail.
Justice Bharti Dange said, “Merely because the offence involved is under section 302 (murder) of Indian Penal Code, it is not imperative for his custodial interrogation and an apprehension of the applicant that, ‘he has reason to believe that he may be arrested,’ is sufficient to invoke the provision of section 438 (grant of bail to person apprehending arrest), of Criminal Procedure Code.”
A case was registered with the Ghatkopar Police station in Mumbai on May 20, 2019, by Manoj Dubey, the brother of the deceased. Dubey alleged that in 2017, the accused Santosh Mane along with four of his associates had attacked him with hockey sticks and swords, mistaking him to be his deceased brother. Dubey’s brother had allegedly told him that there was a prevailing enmity between him and the accused people including Mane and they could eliminate him anytime.
The court saw that there were few cross complaints in 2017 and in one case Mane and Dubey’s brother both were accused. According to Dubey, he and his brother had sought information under RTI about these cases which irked Mane and thus hatched a conspiracy to eliminate his brother.
Advocate Rajiv Chavan appearing for Mane pointed to chargesheet filed in Dubey’s case. In that chargesheet, Mane was shown as wanted accused while the chargesheet was against the assailants. Chavan said that during the 2017 incident, Mane was in Akola and so was given a clean chit.
Chavan said that in the present case, a CDR has been handed over by prosecution which shows that there is communication between Mane and one of the accused. However, there is nothing to establish the connection between Mane with the incident, submitted Chavan.
The bench opined that “the material in the chargesheet falls short of establishing a connect” between the accused and death of a man who was assaulted by the three accused. The court also said that since the incident had taken place some 3 years back and the material compiled in the chargesheet against other accused reflects a limited role of Mane, at this stage, he deserves protection from arrest.
— ENDS —
Read the full article here
