Pune Porsche crash case: Arrest of labour contractor, jeweller legal, says prosecution
Pune: The prosecution informed a special court on Saturday that the arrest of a labour contractor and his jeweller friend in the May 19, 2024, Porsche Taycan car crash case was legal and police communicated in writing the reasons for taking action against them.
Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray, in his counter-submission, dismissed the defence lawyers' claim that assistant commissioner of police (crime) Ganesh Ingale did not communicate the reasons for arresting their clients.
You Can Also Check:
Pune AQI
|
Weather in Pune
|
Bank Holidays in Pune
|
Public Holidays in Pune
Hiray presented copies of chargesheets, remand reports, and the case diary to prove his point and said signatures were obtained on the arrest memo under sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The prosecution argued that the accused could not claim bail on the grounds of parity merely because the mother of the minor Porsche car driver was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court on April 22. The mother, being a woman, claimed bail as per the provision of section 437 (bail to be granted to women in non-bailable offences) of the CrPC, he said. In contrast, the accused filed bail pleas under section 439 of the CrPC (power of sessions court to grant bail in non-bailable offences) and was not entitled to claim the benefit of parity.
The bail plea hearing will continue on May 6.
The labour contractor's son was among the two minors accompanying the 17-year-old driver of the high-end car at the time of the accident, which claimed the lives of two young software engineers in Kalyaninagar. Police's case is that the jeweller friend provided his blood sample to swap it with that of the contractor's minor son.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Violates fundamental rights': SC sets aside narco test order
A narco-analysis test cannot be conducted on an accused person without their consent, and the results of such tests cannot form the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday. Emphasising that the pursuit of modern investigative tools cannot override fundamental constitutional protections, the top court underscored that involuntary narco tests infringe upon the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and PB Varale set aside a 2023 Patna high court order that had accepted an investigating officer's proposal to conduct narco-analysis tests on all accused and witnesses in a dowry harassment case linked to the disappearance of a woman. 'We have no doubt that the impugned order cannot be sustained,' said the bench said, adding that 'under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law.' The court held that the high court erred in accepting the submission of the police for administering the test, noting that it contravened the law laid down in the landmark 2010 ruling in Selvi vs State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench had declared such techniques unconstitutional if done without consent. 'Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions…Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3)...The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as material evidence in the eyes of the law,' noted the bench. To be sure, a narco-analysis test is a forensic interrogation technique in which a suspect is injected with a psychoactive drug to lower their inhibitions and suppress their reasoning ability, in an attempt to extract information, they might otherwise withhold. The bench further stated that permitting such tests without consent would breach a person's right to privacy and amount to a disproportionate exercise of police powers. The apex court also rejected the state's argument that 'modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour,' saying such measures must never come at the cost of constitutional guarantees. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21,' it said. The Court also clarified that a voluntary narco-analysis test, undertaken at an appropriate stage and with adequate safeguards, may be permissible. However, the outcome of such tests, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction,' held the court, referring to the evidentiary value of discoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The third key issue addressed in the judgment was whether an accused has an indefeasible right to undergo a narco-analysis test voluntarily. As highlighted by senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, who assisted the bench as amicus curiae, the bench noted conflicting views from different high courts, including a Rajasthan high court ruling which held that the accused could seek such a test under their right to lead evidence. Rejecting that interpretation, the bench held: 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature... Such a right is not absolute.' Simultaneously, the bench acknowledged that an accused may move an application seeking a voluntary narco test during trial, and if such a plea is made, the concerned court must carefully assess the totality of circumstances, including free consent and necessary safeguards, before allowing the test. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage... However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test,' the judgment clarified. Concluding, the apex court said that the Patna high court's decision to allow narco-analysis at the bail stage was not only premature but outside the scope of what a court considers while adjudicating a bail application. 'It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques,' it added.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC drops drug trafficking case against actor's son over unfair merging of charges
Mumbai: Calling it "preposterous", Bombay high court on Monday dismissed a drug trafficking case registered in 2021 against Dhruv Tahil, son of actor Dalip Tahil . The court held the law prohibits a merging of several minor aberrations over 18 months into one charge, a move that led to Tahil "being charged with an offence of a higher magnitude". Holding the Bandra Anti-Narcotic Cell's action as impermissible after analysing sections 218 and 219 of the erstwhile CrPC, the HC said: "Prosecution cannot be permitted to decipher and follow its own procedure for levying of charge of such a serious nature which is impermissible under the provisions of (law)." Pointing out that Tahil was not even arrested in possession of contraband, Justice Milind Jadhav said: "Prima facie when section 218 (of CrPC) is read, such charge by prosecution on the face of record appears to be preposterous… The procedural law does not permit the prosecution to assimilate more than three charges into a singular charge over a period of 18 months to be tried together and invoke a singular precipitative action. " The ANC, Bandra unit, in May 2021 arrested Tahil, then aged 30, after a co-accused, Muzammil Shaikh, held in Bandra (E) with 35 gm of mephedrone (MD), alleged that he had "in the past" supplied to him and various others. Police said it recovered WhatsApp messages between Jul 2019 and Jan 2021, which allegedly pertained to purchase of 1 gm or 2 gm of MD on various occasions, totalling 44 gm from Shaikh worth roughly Rs 25,000, to justify its invocation of serious charges of drug trafficking against Tahil in alleged conspiracy with Shaikh. HC noted that for small quantities, the punishment is less -- maximum 1 year in jail; but for intermediate quantities (less than commercial) invoked against him, it is 10 years. Justice Jadhav said "the prosecution was aware" each single act of alleged procurement was "less than small quantities" and Tahil would get the benefit of doubt, and hence it combined all the alleged transactions without following the tenets of the exception carved under the law. Tahil had challenged a 2023 rejection of his discharge plea by a special NDPS court. Justice Jadhav, after hearing Tahil's counsel Ayaz Khan, who alleged non-application of mind by the police and "mala fide intentions" in invoking the charges, and after hearing prosecutor H Dedhia, said, "From the material available on record and invocations of charge… no case is made out for the applicant to stand trial." HC also said "the alleged WhatsApp chats... in my opinion cannot translate into admissible evidence" during trial. HC said the state failed to comply with CrPC mandate and it led to Tahil "being charged with an offence of a higher magnitude". That too, under a special law like NDPS, which attracts higher punishment and fine and stringent conditions to get bail, HC noted adding, stringent laws require reciprocal duty on police to strictly comply with the law and its aspects that may have a negative impact on the accused.
