|
The Anti-Extortion Cell (AEC) of the Mumbai Police produced three accused in connection with the firing incident targeting actor Tiger Shroff before the Esplanade Court in Mumbai on Wednesday.
The accused were brought to Mumbai from Kota, Rajasthan, at around 3 am and were presented before the court after undergoing medical examinations. The court has remanded all three accused to police custody till October 31. During the proceedings, the court sought clarification regarding the time of their arrest, when one of the accused told the court that he had been arrested on the morning of October 19. After producing them in court, the investigating officer (IO) and the prosecution had sought police custody of all three accused, arguing that further interrogation was necessary to establish crucial details related to the case. The prosecution also informed the court that the police needed to recover the weapon allegedly used in the firing incident and seize mobile phones and other electronic devices suspected to have been used in the conspiracy. The investigating team also stated that several claims linked to the case required verification. The prosecution further submitted that the accused were allegedly connected to certain individuals outside Maharashtra, necessitating visits to multiple locations for further investigation. Establishing the motive behind the incident was also cited as a key aspect of the probe. The Public Prosecutor told the court that the accused had been chased and arrested in Kota, Rajasthan, and that all three needed to be thoroughly interrogated. On these grounds, the prosecution sought 14 days of police custody. On the other hand, the defence lawyers opposed the prosecution's plea and argued that the grounds cited by the police were insufficient to justify further police custody. One of the defence lawyers referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the Bhushan Singh v. State case, arguing that police custody could not be sought merely for the recovery of items allegedly used in the commission of an offence. The defence also submitted that electronic evidence could be examined without keeping the accused in police custody. It argued that the need to question the accused about other individuals allegedly involved in the case was not, by itself, sufficient grounds for granting police custody. The lawyer further contended that allegations regarding the recovery of weapons, mobile phones and other materials could not, on their own, justify the prosecution's demand for custodial interrogation. Another defence lawyer argued that the accused had already remained in police custody during the transit remand process while being brought from Rajasthan to Mumbai. The lawyer submitted that their custody during transit was not limited to transportation and opposed any further police remand. The defence requested that the court instead remand the three accused to magisterial custody rather than grant the police's request for further custodial interrogation. However, the court remanded all three accused to police custody till October 31, allowing the investigating agency to continue its probe into the firing incident, including the recovery of the alleged weapon and electronic evidence, verification of the claims and investigation into the motive behind the attack. The judge also allowed defence lawyers to meet their clients for a short while so that they may take instructions on the case. (ANI)
|
