Former #Maharashtra Home Minister #AnilDeshmukh produced before Special #CBI Court at Mumbai for remand in connection to corruption case registered after #BombayHighCourt directed enquiry.
SPP Ratan Deep Singh for #CBI: We are seeking further custody of Mr. Deshmukh.
The rest, Sanjeev Palande, Kundan Shinde (Deshmukh’s associates) and dismissed Mumbai cop Sachin Waze can be sent to JC.
SPP: Corruption in transfer of police officers, one of the allegations in the FIRs against Deshmukh. We need to confront him with the other accused. Important aspect.. We need to identify which police officers received the benefits,
Adv Aniket Nikam for Deshmukh: Please see their very first remand copy. Date was April 6 and my client was given in their custody till April 11. The grounds mentioned in the first remand report state that Deshmukh is required to he confronted with other accused persons.
Nikam: ... as well as other witnesses to unearth truth. When first remand was sought one of the grounds was confronting with other accused, suspects and witnesses. This aspect was also noted by this court in its first order remanding my client to their custody till April 11.
Nikam: Now please see second remand report... Same ground is mentioned .. only new ground was that my client was evasive and thus further interrogation and confrontation is needed.
Nikam: now please see today’s remand report, no allegation that I am non-cooperative. They say that in third allegation they need to interrogate my client and to confront him with other persons.
This is just a pseudo reason to seek my custody ... Is this the way they probe?
Nikam: For other accused they seek JC but for my client they don't want to send me to Judicial Custody. They need to justify for instance from last 11 days we have confronted with around 30 persons and in the next 3 days they will confront my client with 15 more persons.
Nikam: They are using a stereotypical grounds.
NIkam cites #SupremeCourt order which says police custody cannot be given as per the whims of the probe agency.
Nikam: Detention in custody particularly police custody is disfavored by law cites SC order. When I was arrested in PMLA matter, I wrote two letters to this agency requesting them to come n interrogate me. First letter on November 8 second on November 16, 2021.
Nikam: I have always cooperated with them when they raided my premises, when they interrogated me while I was in JC in PMLA matter. They have never said that I was non-cooperative or evasive.
Nikam: Suddenly that was said in their second remand report but even today they don't say that I was evasive. They need custody on some flimsy grounds, they want to obtain a confession which in the eyes of law is non-admissible.
Nikam: They have failed to properly investigate the case, there hasn't been any progress in the probe, the remand reports are merely copy paste no change in even the setting of paragraphs. Please consider the vairous ailments my client is suffering from.
SPP: The issue raised is regarding that we haven't come up with a satisfactory ground for seeking custody.
The court has been satisfied everytime and has accordingly granted us the custody.
SPP: The court has seen our case diaries which details who all have been confronted with the accused. There is a possibility that the criminal involvement of other persons can also be unearthed thus we need to confront him with other suspects.
SPP: There is a strong possibility that other accused will be named. These can be police officers, who have paid bribe and have got favourable posts. His medical condition is taken care of by the CBI.
SPP: There isn't any allegation that his medical conditions aren't been looked after. His letters aren't binding on us. CBI isn't going to work as per the accused’s whims. We decided to interrogate only after we found proper material.
Nikam: If such stereotypical grounds are allowed then all the agencies in future use this ground if confrontation and take custody of as many days as they want.
SPP: CCTVs are there in the entire building but not in the interrogation room. But that isn't an interrogation room. It is a big hall with air conditions. It is used to confront accused with other persons in a case.
Jagtap: CCTV camera is a mandate in law and it isn't a choice that you will install at ‘a’ place and not at ‘b’ place. Object here of the CCTVs is to ensure there is no physical or mental torture to the accused or detained person.
#SupremeCourt is hearing applications seeking to re-start iron ore export from Karnataka
CJI NV Ramana: issue is whether e auction should be started or not and whether ore export be allowed.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: Steel Ministry says that more and more iron ore is needed. it says India produces 120 million tons every years and it needs 192 million tons every year.
Bhushan: ministry is saying we need to increase production of steel and thus we need more iron ore. it is not saying that there is surplus of iron ore and thus we dont need to export.
#SupremeCourt bench led by CJI NV Ramana to deliver order in plea challenging the bail granted to UP Minister's son Ashish Mishra in the #lakhimpurkheri case.
Family members of the deceased farmer had argued that witnesses were being threatened
The bench of CJI Ramana and Justices Surya Kant & Hima Kohli to assemble at 10.30 am #SupremeCourt#lakhimpurkheri
Justice Surya Kant: We have prepared three questions. Did Such Overlook relevant evidence by giving bail and was the order by HC illegal
#SupremeCourt special bench headed by CJI NV Ramana is hearing Delhi Government's plea challenging Constitutional validity of Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021,which increased powers of Delhi Lieutenant Governor over elected Govt @LtGovDelhi#SupremeCourt
Sr Adv AM Singhvi: Issue contextually is, Can Delhi transfer post ABC belonging to Central services. Point two is, impugned notification after decades of Govt of NCT, for decades NCT has passed laws notifications for this purpose.
Singhvi: No body had idea to issue notifications like one now issued and challenged herein.
Supreme Court exchange while hearing a FTII student's plea challenging a certain vision-based exam made compulsory in the course
Bench: Sometimes you must let hearts rule the mind.
Counsel: On lighter note, remember a colleague telling me we should read CPC for more civility
Order: Art is non confirmist and will not fit in any box. It is this thought process which made us pass the order dealing with the asepct of colour blindness.
Order: We peruse report of Committee. The same rightly framed two issues on which their opinion was sought. Held about 8 online meetings and with a view to inform itself of the colour blindness difference in curricula by writing to top film institutes.
#SupremeCourt is hearing petition alleging duty evasion on the export of iron ore in pellet form by some firms to countries like China
NGO Common Cause while alleging export of iron ore in pellet form by some private firms by evading export duty seeks direction to Centre to levy an export duty of 30 per cent on the export of iron ore in all forms including pellets.
Adv Prashant Bhushan: many of these mining companies say they are adhering with the rules
CJI: Mr Bhushan I want to tell you something, State counsel has been heard and orders have been passed. if they agree its okay and if they dont agree then file additional documents etc.