Godfrey Phillips: Bina Modi, Lalit Bhasin not charged in Samir Modi assault case
Samir Modi
Synopsis Bina Modi, chairperson of Godfrey Phillips India, and former director Lalit Bhasin, have not been charged in the alleged assault case of Samir Modi at a board meeting. Delhi Police cited a lack of evidence, only charging Bina Modi's personal security officer, Surendra Prasad. Samir Modi's lawyer claims sufficient evidence exists against Bina Modi, planning to file a protest petition. Godfrey Phillips India's chairperson Bina Modi and former director Lalit Bhasin have not been charged in a case accusing them of conspiracy to assault the company's former director Samir Modi at a board meeting last year, according to people familiar with the matter.
ADVERTISEMENT They remain suspects in the case but were not charged due to lack of evidence, Delhi Police officials said on condition of anonymity.
The police have only charge-sheeted Bina Modi's personal security officer (PSO), Surendra Prasad, who was a co-accused in the matter, they said.
Samir Modi, a former Godfrey Phillips director and current promoter, is Bina Modi's son. His lawyer, Simran Singh, claimed Bina Modi had not been exonerated. However, the police officials cited earlier said the investigation had been completed.'The police has not exonerated Bina Modi and therefore places her in column 12 of the charge sheet,' said Singh. 'There is sufficient evidence on record against Mrs Bina Modi for intentionally aiding and abetting her PSO in wrongful restrain and also common intention with him to not only restrain Samir Modi from entering the meeting room but also voluntarily causing assault and grievous hurt to Samir Modi in that process. We will file a protest petition and will request the court to take cognizance against Mrs Bina Modi also, for offences under sections 341/325/34 of the IPC.'The final charge sheet was prepared by Delhi Police after an investigation that lasted for almost a year. A first information report was filed at Delhi's Sarita Vihar police station last year by Samir Modi alleging he was assaulted by Bina Modi's personal security officer at Godfrey Phillips India's board meeting on May 31, 2024.
ADVERTISEMENT
Samir Modi, who was formerly an executive director with Godfrey Phillips India, was sacked from the company's board on August 7. He has been locked in a family dispute where he has accused his mother of not making good on the distribution of the family inheritance the terms of which were laid out in a trust deed by the family patriarch, the late KK Modi.
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
NEXT STORY
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
MP HC commutes murder charge to culpable homicide, orders release of accused
Bhopal: A division bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court reduced the charge of murder against a woman accused of killing her husband to culpable homicide. The charge against her wife of father's elder brother (tai) was also reduced likewise, while her brother's wife was absolved of the charge. The accused, Rajkumari, and two other women from her parental family were found guilty of the murder of Rajkumari's husband by a sessions court at Sagar and sentenced to life. Since the wife was in jail for 10 years and her tai remained in jail for 9 years before being released on bail, the court stated that they already served the sentence for culpable homicide and should be released from jail forthwith. Rajkumari was charged with murder for throwing boiling water on her husband, causing his death during treatment. Her bhabhi, Rati, and tai, Ramsakhi, were co-accused in the case. In their criminal revision petition, Rajkumari and Ramsakhi argued that the deceased died after being discharged from the hospital following treatment. They contended that, at worst, they could be convicted for culpable homicide and not murder. On the other hand, Rajkumari's bhabhi, Rati, argued that the deceased did not name her in his dying declaration, so she should be absolved of the charge altogether. The bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla found that Rajkumari's husband died 10 days after being discharged from the hospital due to septicemia, and Rati's name does not appear in the names taken by the deceased in his dying declaration. The court reduced the charges against Rajkumari and Ramsakhi to culpable homicide under section 304 of the IPC from section 302 and acquitted the third accused.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Take disciplinary action against Satara SP, 3 cops for failing to book IB officer: SPCA tells Maharashtra govt
The State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) recommended the Maharashtra government to institute disciplinary proceedings against four policemen, including the Superintendent of Police (SP) Satara, over failing to lodge an FIR against a Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) officer, who was accused of abusing and assaulting his junior in May 2024. SPCA chairperson Justice (retired) Shrihari Davare, member Umakant Mitkar and retired IAS officer Vijay Satbir Singh, after hearing the complaint filed by Saikumar Suryakant Mehta, a junior SIB officer, on June 5 passed an order partly allowing the complaint against Satara SP Sameer Sheikh, Inspector Rajendra Masake, Sub-Inspector Avinash Gavli, and Assistant Inspector Amit Shitole, all then attached to Satara city police station. The complainant, who is posted as junior intelligence officer in the affiliated office of SIB in Satara, on July 18, 2024 had approached the SPCA with a complaint claiming non-registration of FIR over the alleged incident of severe assault upon him by his superior officer Hitesh Inamke. 'Cognisable offence committed, but NC lodged' Mehta's complaint before SPCA claimed that on May 11, 2024, his senior Inamke allegedly abused him in front of other employees in the office without any reason and severely assaulted him, leading to a fracture to the vertebra, causing a threat to his life. Mehta initially complained to his department's seniors in Pune and Mumbai the same day. But after no action was taken on his complaint, he eventually approached the Satara police after due medical examination and treatment and filed a complaint. However, despite submitting medical reports and certificates, the police did not register an FIR in the matter, prompting Mehta to move SPCA. Mehta's complaint to SPCA stated that, though prima facie cognisable offence was committed by Inamke, the police personnel recorded a non-cognisable offence against him. 'Injury not substantiated' However, the police officers in question claimed before the SPCA that since the certificate dated June 13, 2024 issued by District General Hospital, Satara did not disclose any fracture to vertebra of the complainant and since the said certificate discloses only 'simple injury' and did not disclose any external injury, they recorded a no-cognisable offence in the matter under sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC on June 21, 2024. The police officers conducted an inquiry and recorded the statements of witnesses — staff in the office of Mehta — as well as seized CCTV footage from the office. Besides, they also issued a notice under the CrPC to Inamke on August 25, 2024. The police officers claimed before the authority that they were neither involved in serious violation of provision of law nor they abused their lawful authorities, and have not committed any misconduct as alleged by Mehta. The police officers opposed Mehta's allegations and submitted that though the alleged incident occurred on May 11, 2024, Mehta lodged the complaint 14 days later. The policemen further submitted that despite Mehta's claim that he sustained fracture to vertebra during the assault, it was not substantiated by the medical papers of Satara Civil Hospital, produced by the complainant. Referring to other diagnostic reports submitted by the complainant, the policemen argued that the reports admittedly belonged to private hospitals and they were contrary to each other and in the absence of the report from the Civil Hospital categorically showing the fracture to vertebra of the complainant, the police were unable to register the FIR immediately as per the guidelines issued by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs State of UP. 'Serious violation of law' After hearing both the sides, citing conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs state of UP and others, the SPCA found that by not lodging a cognisable offence, the four police officers have committed the serious violation of provision of law or abused of their respective lawful authorities as contemplated under section 22Q (1)(a)(viii) of the Maharashtra Police (Amendment & Continuance) Act, 2014 and they have committed the misconduct as prescribed under the Regulation No.2(n) of the Regulations, 2017. In the order, SPCA stated that the state government should treat the same as preliminary inquiry for the purpose of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the four policemen and the state government or the competent authority shall direct the institution of disciplinary proceedings or any other legal action against the said delinquent police officers. The authority has exonerated a fifth policeman as the complaint could not be established against him. The SPCA has also directed that the copy of the present judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, who shall circulate the conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP & Anr. among all the police stations/police chowkies in the state categorically directing them to observe and follow the same.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
Maharashtra news: Bank official steals gold worth ₹27 lakh in Thane, arrested by police
A bank official was arrested in Thane district of Maharashtra for allegedly stealing gold worth ₹ 27 lakh that was pledged by customers. The accussed has been identified as 29-year-old Sachin Arun Kalan. According to police, Sachin Arun Kalan, who works at a private bank in Ambernath East in the Thane district, was arrested on June 6 under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for criminal breach of trust and other offences. 'Between May and May 26, Kalan, as the bank's relationship executive, was handling gold loan cases. During this period, he took away gold ornaments worth ₹ 26.90 lakh that had been mortgaged by customers who had availed loans. A detailed probe is underway to cover all aspects of the crime,' a Shivaji Nagar police station official said, according to news agency PTI. Further investigarion is underway into the matter. A 29-year-old fisherman from Kerala has been arrested by the Delhi Police for allegedly duping a retired army colonel of over ₹ 18.8 lakh after promising high returns from foreign exchange (forex) investments, an official said on Saturday. The accused, identified as Sreejith Rajendran, a resident of Azheekal in Kollam district of Kerala, was apprehended from his hometown, he said. The police said Sreejith, who studied till Class 10 and is a fisherman by profession, was enticed into the racket by a friend who flaunted a lavish lifestyle funded through fraudulent means. Driven by greed and a desire for easy money, he became part of the syndicate. Earlier this year, another accused, Sunil, from Jodhpur was arrested in connection with the same gang. The mastermind of the operation, Anandhu Lal from Kollam, is still at large, according to the police. "The victim, a retired Colonel, was lured into the scam in December 2023 after receiving unsolicited messages and calls from a woman who identified herself as 'Cute Arvin Anghita'. She convinced him of potential profits in the forex market and encouraged repeated investments," Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Harsh Indora said. Under the guise of high returns, the complainant was coaxed into transferring money in several instalments. When he sought to withdraw funds, he was told to make additional payments to process the withdrawal, he said, adding that eventually, a total of ₹ 18,80,818 was taken from him.
