Mumbai, Dec 27 (PTI) A sessions court has said the trial court “ought not to have taken a hypertechnical view” in giving relief to rape-accused film producer Gunwant Jain over when he was informed about the grounds of his arrest.
Jain, accused of allegedly raping a 38-year-model, was arrested on November, 21. The following day, the police produced him before a magistrate court in suburban Andheri and sought his remand for five days.
However, the magistrate ordered Jain’s immediate release, holding that he was informed about the grounds of his arrest after 4 minutes of being taken into custody, which he said violated the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The reprieve to Jain prompted the police to file a revision application before the sessions court (Dindoshi).
Additional Sessions Judge (Dindoshi Court) D G Dhoble on December 24 allowed the revision application and directed the film producer to surrender before the police station (Versova) concerned.
The court allowed the investigating officer to arrest Jain if he failed to turn in himself before the police.
After the setback at the trial court, police had submitted before the sessions court that the magistrate’s order was “contrary to law and prejudicial to the investigation”. Police also contended that Jain’s arrest was lawful and in compliance with BNSS.
The accused, through his lawyer, argued that the arrest itself was illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under BNSS.
The accused was neither informed of the grounds of arrest in detail nor were his family members notified (at the time of his arrest at 22.56 hours on November 21, Jain’s lawyer said. They were informed of the grounds of arrest at about 23.00 hours, the defence submitted.
The sessions court said there was no dispute that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the film producer and it was only about the time.
“The law mandates grounds of arrest to be informed forthwith. The meaning of forthwith is nowhere defined but in my view, it must be within a reasonable time under the circumstances as per legal meaning,” the additional sessions judge observed.
The mere fact that at the bottom of the document showing the grounds of arrest, the accused and his friend noted the time as 23.00 hours cannot lead to the conclusion that it was communicated to him only after his arrest, the judge said.
“This discrepancy in the recorded time appears to be a lapse of time while typing grounds of arrest under the circumstances. No prejudice shown to have been caused to the accused due to this discrepancy,” the court said.
The sessions judge said that the trial court (magistrate) misinterpreted the word ‘forthwith’ and therefore, it cannot be said that there was no compliance with the provisions of BNSS.
“The magistrate, in the impugned order, took an overly hypertechnical view to hold that the arrest was illegal. Such a view is neither sustainable in law nor supported by the record,” the judge said in the order.
The sessions court cautioned that the “trial court ought not to have taken a hypertechnical view” and said it “failed to balance procedural compliance with the need for investigation”.
The producer is accused of sexually assaulting the model after falsely giving the assurance of marriage. He had administered a sedative before committing the offence and threatened her, police have claimed. PTI AVI NR
About the Author
