A SESSIONS court has asked the Mumbai police commissioner to take action against a sub-inspector of Shivaji Nagar police station after allegations that the latter refused to file a reply to an anticipatory bail application until his demands were met. “There appears to be substance in the claim of the accused that the police sub-inspector (PSI) must have threatened the relatives of the applicant to meet him for fulfilment of his wishes and demands and as the same is not complied, he has intentionally not filed reply on record. Therefore, this act and attitude of the PSI is serious,” the court said. The court said the prosecutor should send a copy of the order to the Mumbai police commissioner to take action against the PSI for his “willful and negligent act” of not remaining present in court and filing his say on the anticipatory bail plea. An FIR was filed at Shivaji Nagar police station earlier this month on the complaint of Shadab Ansari against the accused. Ansari told the police that he had married an 18-year-old girl from his locality named Kusumda Shaikh on September 11 but their respective family members were unaware of it. On September 29, Ansari told his family members, who then approached Shaikh’s family to tell them about the marriage. Shaikh’s family, however, allegedly abused Ansari and his relatives. Then on October 9, when Ansari was standing outside his residence, Shaikh’s brother and his friends allegedly came to the spot and began abusing and assaulting Ansari. The police arrested Ansari’s brother, Kalim, who was subsequently granted bail by the Kurla metropolitan magistrate’s court. Three of his friends — Mohammed Istiyak Khan, Adil Ansari and Mohammed Samir — then approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. The FIR against them include charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, criminal intimidation and common intent. The men in their plea claimed their custodial interrogation was not necessary and that they were falsely implicated. Their advocate claimed before the court the investigating officer had told them that until he files a reply to their anticipatory bail plea, the court would not grant them bail. The defence advocate said the officer had asked the relatives to meet him to ensure that his demands are met and had refused to file a reply until they do so. After hearing both sides, the court granted anticipatory bail to the three men.
