The magistrate report is not “material” to reserve the police for the alleged false meeting in Badlapur, it will decide after the CID: State to Bombay HC

On if it will record a thread on the basis The “findings” of an investigation magistrate, Who came to the conclusion that the five policemen killed the accused of the case of Badlapur sexual aggression in a “false meeting”, the Maharashtra government today said that the High Court Bombay cannot say that the report was “material” to comply with the mandate. Judgment Lalita Kumari (to submit fir).

The state, which has not yet submitted any thread on the basis of the magistrate’s report, told a bank of the division Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale That his CID conducts an “independent investigation” in case and only afterwards ends, he can receive a call.

Special Public Prosecutor and Senior Amit Desai lawyer he told the bank that the state “considers that it acts according to the law”.

“The investigations are in progress … Our CID is conducting its independent probe and is based on the same thing, it will reach its independent result, whether the FI has to be submitted, whether or not a known offense is done or not whether it is the same for the purpose of Kumari (to submit Brad)” Desai told the court.

Added the senior counselor, “There is nothing to suggest that the probe team acts in a malass manner … It is not the slightest action to suggest that our actions are contrary to the law or there are some evils, etc.

In particular, the magistrate gave him the report on January 17, in which he concluded that the meeting seemed to be a “false” one, because the use of force by the police on the relevant day was “unjustified”.

During the previous hearings, the parents of the deceased accused approached the bank led by Judge Mohite-Dere and told the court that they did not want to follow the case because of “Delay in obtaining justice” for his son. Therefore the bank had Named the main lawyer Manjula Rao, to help the court as Amicus.

The judges asked Rao to address the court if the state can register a wire (against the five policemen), given the magistrate’s report and the role of the state after submitting such a report. Also, the bank asked Rao to argue about whether the wire can be registered or if the establishment of a commission or the CID investigation will be an impediment for the police to submit a wire.

Arguing on this topic, Desai quoted the Pucl VS State of Maharashtra’s judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced in 2005, regarding the “Responsibility of the Police in Meetings”. He claimed that the detailed guidelines provided by the Apex Court are followed by the state.

–The decision obliges an independent probe agency to investigate the case, which I did as a CID is an independent agency. All the orientations established under the Pucl verdict were followed. The principles of PUCL have been respected … Thus, this court standing under Article 227 cannot issue a direction to the state to submit a thread based on the magistrate’s report,“Desai submitted.

In this regard, the Mohite-Dede justice explained that the bank has never asked the councilors to approach if it can register a direct registration of a wire.

“We know our powers and limitations, Mr. counselor. Our question was not in our direction, but what is the role of the police in receiving the report … Our question was whether based on the report, whether it deals with the police to submit or not”, “ Mohite-Dere justice clarified.

The bank will continue to hear the problem on Monday (March 10).