The Bombay High Court and the sessions court on Friday reserved their orders in pleas filed by bookie Anil Jaisinghani challenging his “illegal” arrest and seeking bail respectively, in an extortion and bribery case lodged by Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s wife Amruta Fadnavis.
Jaisinghani was arrested in Gujarat and is presently in judicial custody.A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and PD Naik was hearing a petition filed by Jaisinghani claiming that he had been illegally arrested in the case on March 19, but was not produced before the court within 24 hours as mandated in law.
Advocates contend that case is monitored by the Home Minister of the state
His advocates, Mrigendra Singh and Mannan Sanghai, contended that he was produced before the sessions court in Mumbai 36 hours after his arrest. They further alleged that everything in the case was being monitored by the complainant's husband who is the state's home minister.
Refuting the allegations, Advocate General Birendra Saraf said the police had followed the legal procedures and that there had been no delay in producing Jaisinghani before the court for remand.
Saraf said that the police had merely taken "possession" of Jaisinghani on March 19 and they wanted to produce him before the competent court in Mumbai. As per the arrest memo, Jaisinghani was arrested on March 20 at 5 pm and was produced before the sessions court on March 21, Saraf said.
Court asked to consider Jaisinghani's medical infirmities
Meanwhile, before the sessions court, his advocates sought bail on parity with Jaisinghani's daughter who was given the relief by court. Sanghai urged the court to consider Jaisinghani's medical infirmities too.
Opposing his bail, Special Public Prosecutor Ajay Misar argued that while Jaisinghani claimed bail on parity, his role would have to be considered as it was for his benefit the conspiracy was planned. He also pointed out that at one point there were 17 FIRs against Jaisinghani and that he had been absconding in many of them and the nature of the offence must be considered.
