A sessions court has refused pre-arrest bail to a city-based lawyer – who represents former home minister Anil Deshmukh in the money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate – accused of outraging the modesty of a woman member of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).
The Dindoshi sessions court had dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by Inderpal Singh (62) on Monday. However, the detailed copy was made available on Tuesday.
Additional sessions Judge N L Kale observed that custodial interrogation and physical presence of the accused persons before the police was required for a probe to be carried out.
Singh and three others have been booked by the suburban Charkop police in November 2021 under sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman), 509 (words to insult modesty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act.
According to the complainant, after she became the president of the Mahila Jilha of NCP Mumbai, Singh, who at the time was president of the NCP, Uttar Mumbai, used to harass her by asking her to “send beautiful women to his office”. Since the complainant opposed this, Singh allegedly held a grudge against her.
The woman has claimed in the complaint that Singh allegedly caused disturbances in her social work and created hurdles in her career. In October 2021, Singh allegedly sent objectionable messages about the complainant in a WhatsApp group and later at an NCP meeting the accused made false statements about her.
Singh and the three other accused in their pre-arrest bail pleas claimed that the woman had lodged a false report against them and had made false and frivolous allegations.
The court, however, rejected their pleas and noted that in the present that most of the investigation relates to electronic media and devices since the accused used their phones to send the alleged messages on a WhatsApp group.
“These devices are yet to be seized. For the seizure of cell phones used by the accused in the commission of the alleged crime, their custody with the investigating officer is quite necessary,” observed the court.
