‘Custodial interrogation is necessary’, Sindhudurg court rejects Nitesh Rane’s bail plea

Additional Sessions Judge R B Rote said the anticipatory bail plea filed by Rane was rejected by even the Supreme Court. “…which means that the custodial interrogation of the applicant (Rane) is necessary for proper and effective investigation of the case. There is no substantial change in circumstances since rejection of the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant.”

Soon after the court rejected his plea, Rane, the son of Union Minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane, moved a bail plea before the Bombay High Court.

He was not taken into custody at Sindhudurg following the court’s order. The Supreme Court had on January 27 granted him protection for 10 days, directing him to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail.

Rane’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde told the Sindhudurg court that since he has been granted protection from arrest for 10 days, his physical appearance before the court amounts to surrender.

Special Public Prosecutor Pradip Gharat opposed this, stating that Rane’s anticipatory bail was rejected by the sessions court as well as the Bombay High Court. To apply for regular bail, Rane should first surrender before the court and be taken into custody, he argued. Otherwise, Rane’s plea amounts to filing another anticipatory bail, a remedy he has already exhausted since it was rejected in both the sessions court and the HC. The SC, too, has said that it did not want to interfere with the HC’s order, said Gharat.

Gharat further said that a formal plea should be made by Rane stating that he is surrendering. He also added that no notice was served to the prosecution regarding Rane’s bail plea.

Maneshinde, meanwhile, argued on merits of the case, claiming that Rane cannot be booked under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. He said that the allegations of a murder bid on Shiv Sena member Santosh Parab have been made due to political rivalry. He added that Parab had allegedly been attacked by a paper cutter and it did not cause grievous hurt, so the Section 307 cannot be invoked.

He further said that Rane has cooperated with the probe and his statement has been recorded last month.
The Sindhudurg court said that Rane had not filed a written application to surrender. “The application is premature hence, the application is not maintainable,” it added.

Parab, the complainant in the case, has claimed that he was assaulted by occupants of an Innova car on December 18 last year, one of whom had allegedly said that they “should inform Gotya Sawant and Nitesh Rane”.