Khushi Bajpai
Published on: October 4, 2022 at 23:30 IST
When granting anticipatory relief to a man, the Bombay High Court emphasized that just because a case involves murder does not mandate that the suspect be held in police custody for questioning.
The accused was given anticipatory bail as a result by the court.
“He has reason to believe that he may be arrested, the applicant believes, is sufficient to invoke the provision of Section 438 (grant of bail to person apprehending arrest),” Justice Bharti Dange stated.
“Merely because the offense involved is under Section 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code, it is not imperative for his custodial interrogation.”
The brother of the deceased, Manoj Dubey, filed a case on May 20, 2019, with the Ghatkopar Police Station in Mumbai.
Santosh Mane, along with four of his colleagues, is accused of attacking Dubey in 2017 with hockey sticks and swords after mistaking him for his deceased brother, according to Dubey.
According to reports, Dubey’s brother had warned him that Mane and the other accused parties had a history of animosity toward him and were prepared to kill him at any time.
The court observed that there weren’t many cross-complaints in 2017 and that one case involved accusations against both Mane and Dubey’s brother.
According to Dubey, he and his brother had requested information about these incidents under the RTI, which angered Mane and led him to develop a plan to eliminate his brother.
Mane’s attorney, Rajiv Chavan, cited the chargesheet that was submitted in Dubey’s case. While the chargesheet was against the attackers, Mane was listed as a wanted defendant.
According to Chavan, Mane received a pass for the 2017 incident because he was in Akola at the time. Further, he added that the prosecution in the current case has provided a CDR that demonstrates communication between Mane and one of the accused.
However, according to Chavan, there is no evidence connecting Mane to the incident.
According to the bench, “the material in the chargesheet falls short of proving a connection” between the defendants and the death of a man who was assaulted by the defendants, three.
The court further stated that Mane should be protected from arrest at this time because the incident happened more than three years ago and the evidence gathered in the chargesheet against the other defendants shows only a minor part for Mane.