Mumbai Court Extends Anil Deshmukh's CBI Custody Till April 16

A special CBI court in Mumbai on Monday extended the CBI custody of former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh till April 16 in a corruption case. The court also extended the custody of co-accused Sanjeev Palande, Kundan Shinde and dismissed cop Sachin Waze. The Central Bureau of Investigation sought his custody for five more days in the case regarding corruption in transfers and postings of police officers in the state. CBI said it wants to confront Deshmukh with more witnesses and suspects."Considering the progress of the investigation so far and taking into consideration the nature of the allegations in the FIR, this court is satisfied that the grounds for further extension of CBI custody are satisfactory and hence, the accused persons are required to be remanded in CBI custody for further investigation as prayed," Special Judge DP Shingade observed in the order. As far as the medical grounds of 72-year-old Deshmukh are concerned, the court said "discharge summary shows that he has been discharged from the J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. As such, the medical ground is not sufficient to reject his CBI custody remand for the purpose of further investigation."Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhry, appearing for Deshmukh argued that the entire process is bad in law and there is no significant progress in the investigation, in which Deshmukh has been cooperative. On being asked about the CCTV cameras by the Court, the CBI responded that while CCTVs are available in the station, they are not placed in the interrogation rooms. Advocate Shekar Jagtap for co-accused Sanjeev Palande and advocate for Kundan Shinde also oppose further custody. The CBI prosecutor submitted before the Court that they had specifically mentioned "to be interrogated at length" which does not necessarily mean that the interrogation is completed."Three hours in the day get wasted because of breakfast lunch dinner and family visits..... This is not like a normal case sir. Every few hours they say we are feeling tired. We have to take care of their health, their is no ill-treatment."Advocate Aniket Nikam submitted that his client (Anil Deshmukh), has never said that he is tired. He also submitted that CCTV footage has been sought so that everything is clear and that they do not wish to respond to malafide allegations. He argued that the case diary must be produced to prove that his client has not cooperated. Fundamental rights cannot be compromised on the whims of the prosecuting agency, he added. The court noted that a CCTV has two aspects- one is inside police stations and the second during interrogation. The Court remarked saying that where is it said that during interrogation CCTV is required. Advocate Shekhar Jagtap, appearing for Palande cited the judgment delivered by Justice SJ Kathawalla on the point of CCTV installation in the police station. In the judgment, it has been mentioned that, "In order to ensure that no part of the police station is left uncovered...", which in his submission will also include the lock-ups and other places.Jagtap accused the CBI of threatening to use third degree interrogation techniques on him. The CBI prosecutor submitted that this CCTV is only for the reason that if there is an allegation of mistreatment, the same can be informed to the superiors.While CBI said they wanted the accused's custody for further interrogation and accused them of not cooperating, the accused strongly denied the allegation, stating that they had always cooperated with the investigation. The CBI took Deshmukh in their custody on April 6, 2022. While Deshmukh had challenged a special court's order granting the CBI permission to take him in custody in th HC, his petition couldn't be heard after two judges recused. Anil Deshmukh's ArgumentsSenior Advocate Vikram Chaudhry, appearing for Deshmukh, opposed the extension of remand saying that not answering the agency's questions cannot be a ground for extending custody as Deshmukh "had a fundamental right to remain silent."Chaudhry also submitted that not everything that the agency said needed to be taken as true, saying that the remand application came across as if whatever they write there was gospel truth and that whatever they mention in the application ought to be considered.He also argued that there it had been a year since the CBI case was registered, but they never felt any need for arresting Deshmukh while he wrote to the agency in November last year, asking them to interrogate him, however, he was arrested by the CBI just before his bail application in the PMLA case by the Enforcement Directorate was to be heard.Chaudhry argued that simply because there is a right to arrest does not mean that a person must necessarily be arrested and if he was arrested, then was granting custody necessary. He submitted that despite several directives, that people who are of old age and suffering from ailments need not be arrested. He then submitted that he wasn't seeking any preferential treatment...

Mumbai Court Extends Anil Deshmukh's CBI Custody Till April 16

Sharmeen Hakim

Tags