JW Singh8217;s bail plea rejected

While Singh was remanded to judicial custody, the choice of the custody venue has been left to the police and jail authorities. The judge did not specify the jail. On April 18, the same court had rejected Singh8217;s bail plea stating that Singh8217;s involvement in abetting extortion by a crime syndicate could not be ruled out.

The accused judge Singh was present in the court today. His counsel I P Bagadia moved another application asking for segregation of the accused from other jailmates. Bagadia argued that since Singh has tried several cases in the Sessions court, he may be harmed by the accused persons. He feared a danger to Sngh8217;s life. Therefore, he argued the accused judge not be kept with other jail mates, especially people with criminal records. He pressed for the Central prison at Byculla. The judge allowed for segregation of Singh8217;s custody. However, he did not specify the jail venue. The judge also allowed Singh to be served home food. Singh8217;s son was also present in court.

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, who opposed Singh8217;s bail application did not oppose his segregation in jail. He said police investigations are still on and therefore it was not right to release the accused judge on bail. He said there was prima facie evidence of the judge8217;s conversation with a member of the underworld. However, the telephonic evidence has still to be confirmed. He said Singh had not denied talking to don Chhota Shakeel in connection with recovery of a chit fund. Nikam said a review committee has been set up under MCOCA Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act to consider if the authorisation obtained for intercepting telephone calls was legal. Besides, Supreme Court guidelines had been followed while obtaining permission under the Indian Telegraph Act for intercepting calls.

Bagadia argued that merely because the main accused Shakeel was absconding, and police investigations were not over, the accused judge could not be kept behind bars indefinitely.

Meanwhile, Nikam today asked the judge if Section 385 of the IPC applied to Singh. Judge Bhangale said the court has concluded that only Section 385 putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion was applicable. Nikam had argued that Singh8217;s alleged offence attracts Section 387 of IPC putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt to commit extortion, which entails minimum seven years punishment for continuous illegal activities under MCOCA. The court8217;s verdict on this count is significant because Section 385 calls for only two years8217; punishment.