There is no need for separate thread against police officers involved in Shinde meeting, State says HC

Mumbai: The State Government reiterated the position in front of the High Court in Bombay, that a separate information report (wire) was not required to be registered against the Police Staff involved in the Akshay Shinde meeting, arrested in cases of sexual aggression of the Badlapur school.

No separate thread is needed against police officers involved in Shinde meeting, State says HC

The main lawyer, Amit Desai, who represented the Government, argued that, since an accidental death report (ADR) was already registered, you did not need to register a separate wire and that the investigation could be completed by submitting a report in accordance with section 157 of CRPC. “You can label everything, but legally it is a fir tree. The ADR number is the thread number, ”he said.

To which, the Division Bank of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and justice Dr. Neela Gokhale noted: “If you claim that an ADR is a thread, then it is a great statement.”

Desai replied: “In this case, I interpret the Constitutional Bank. There were occasions when the police misused the power, and the Supreme Court says they should be investigated. The meeting case became a class of itself after the PUCL case. The way it must be researched is a point that meditates in front of us. ”

In the case of “Pucl (the popular union for civil freedoms) vs Union of India”, the Supreme Court has established restrictions on custody deaths.

The bank heard the petition submitted by Akshay’s father, Anna Shinde, looking for the wire against police officers, accused of killing her son as he took him for query in another case.

The main lawyer Manjula Rao claimed that, in accordance with section 173 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it was mandatory for the police to register a wire after receiving information on committing a cognizable crime.

However, Desai rejected the argument on the grounds that the state cid was investigating Shinde’s death in accordance with the provisions of criminal laws than what was referred to Rao’s arguments. He claimed that the Agency investigated the crime under section 176 in the NBSS or section 157 of CRPC.