Bombay HC sets aside police custody of NCP-SP worker over Fadnavis death threat video

Sawant, 29, in his writ petition, had questioned the validity and propriety of the March 2 order passed by sessions court that set aside his judicial custody.

After his arrest on February 29, he was produced before the Bandra metropolitan magistrate, who remanded him in judicial custody.

As per Sawant, on March 2, the Santacruz police, without giving any notice to him, challenged the judicial custody before the sessions court and remanded him to police custody till March 7. Sawant, through advocate Prashant Aher, challenged the said order passed in a “hasty” manner, seeking direction to quash and set it aside stating that the procedures of law were not adhered to by the sessions court.

The FIR was registered at the Santacruz police station based on a complaint by social worker Akshay Panvelkar (32). Panvelkar, a Shiv Sena associate, came across the video on Facebook, after which he gave a written complaint to the police.

As per the complaint, the video was shared on Facebook by one Yogesh Sawant, who was booked along with the person who allegedly gave death threat to deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis in the interview.

The offences punishable under sections 500 (defamation), 505(3) (statements containing public mischief), 506(2) (threat), 34 (common intention) and 153-A (promoting enmity between groups) of IPC were levelled against the accused.

Public prosecutor Hiten S Venegaonkar justified the sessions court order and added that Sawant’s bail application before the magistrate can be entertained even during police custody.

“It is worth noting that when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody. Despite the possibility of promptly issuing and serving notice to the petitioner, no such notice was issued, and he was not granted an opportunity for a hearing. This omission goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice. This itself is sufficient to warrant interference in the impugned order and as such, this court does not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,” Justice Laddha noted in his order.

The HC set aside the March 2 order of the sessions court as “not sustainable in law” and allowed the plea.