Society’s interests not just Shah’s liberty at stake, says state tells HC

Justice Parkar, upon conclusion of arguments, commenced delivery of hisjudgement but could not complete it at the close of court. However, Shah’s counsel Ashok Desai requested the judge to extend by a day Shah’s remand, which is coming up in the special court on Thursday. The judge then directed the designated Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) judge to extend Shah’s remand to January 22.

Saying that while the prosecution was opposed, not averse, to giving Shah the remand papers, Tahilramani hit out at the defence saying that nowhere in the bail application or in their oral prayers did they ask for a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) or sanction copy of the competent authority but mentioned them in their arguments. “If they make an application for a certified copy they shall be given the same. They come to this court without raising it in the lower court. This is not the forum,” she said.

Tahilranani pointed out that the laws cited by the defence to buttress their claim that Shah was being denied his rights pertained to preventive detention and had no direct bearing on the present case. She argued that jail manuals could not be applied to accused in police custody. The police are not bound to give the defence a copy of the remand application, only at the discretion of the court. On whether Shah is entitled to a remand application, she replied in the affirmative adding that this excludes “certain” material. She said she was fortified by the Bombay High Court judgement of 2000, which said remand papers should not be given in MCOCA cases.

She then submitted the remand papers to Justice Parkar, saying they contained certain important names and telephone numbers. The judge asked, “Does it have to be so detailed?” She replied, “No, in future we shall be careful and if need be, portions can be deleted.” She said the case had important ramifications as it affects a large number of people and film-makng was the largest money-making industry in India. Tahilramani said copies will be given when the chargesheet is filed. “In this case, the investigation is at a nascent stage. We have further material and if it isrevealed, it will hamper the investigation. The minute they come to know of certain particulars, they will get to the persons and stop them from speaking. They contain not just names or addresses but material that will easily identify persons. It is not just the liberty of an individual at stake but the larger interest of society. It involves hawala transactions affecting the country’s economy,” she underscored.

She said Section 10 of MCOCA has cogent reasons for shielding the name of the accused. She cited the example of the J W Singh case, where advocate Liaquat Ali Shaikh was shot no sooner than the FIR was filed. She said the defence was making a hue and cry just to gain sympathy. Much was said about not being given an interview with lawyers. The first letter of Janyary 11, 2001 was not handed to the investigating officer (IO). “Yet he waited the next day at 10.30 am but no one came. Should the IO send a vehicle to bring them? Can’t they make a call,” Tahilramani wondered.

She said Shah was accompanied not by “a lawyer but lawyers” whenever he was called to the Crime Branch or even in court. He was detaind for two hours before he was taken to court and was in the company of his lawyers. He was told of his ground of arrest under Section 3 (2) of MCOCA for abetting the underworld and tapes were played.

However, Shah’s counsel Amit Desai countered that his client has a constitutional right to consult his lawyers. Tahilramani retorted, “Constitutional rights are also subject to reasonable restrictions in view of larger interests.” Shah was also represented by Shiraz Rahimtoola, M L Ranjit, Vibhav Krishan and solicitors Gagrat and Company. Special Public Prosecutor Rohini Salian appeared alongwith Tahilramani.