12 accused of SI recruitment kept in illegal custody, orders for action against guilty officers

Jaipur, 12 April (HS). Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahanagar-II has released 12 accused on conditional bail in the SI paper leak case. The court accepted that these accused were arrested without giving any notice. Apart from this, he was not produced in the court within 24 hours of being taken into custody. In such a situation, keeping them in custody will be considered illegal. The court, while ordering the immediate release of 11 trainee SIs Surendra, Dinesh, Bhalaram, Rakesh, Subhash, Ajay, Jairaj, Manish, Manju, Chetan, Harkhu and constable Abhishek, has asked the Home Secretary and the DGP to take action against the guilty officers. Take appropriate action. The court gave this order while hearing the application presented by the accused.

The court said in its order that SOG had been instructed to follow the provisions made for the production of the accused in the court, but SOG officers remained irresponsible towards these instructions and they violated Section 57 and Section 41A of CrPC. Did not follow legal provisions. It seems that SOG officers are not afraid of action being taken against them. The court does not want to go on these two arguments that this case is completely political and the accused have been targeted because they belong to a particular community. The court is going only on constitutional and legal provisions.

In the application, advocate Vipul Sharma and others told the court that 11 trainee SIs were detained by SOG from RPA on the morning of April 2 and they were shown arrested on the evening of April 3. Similarly, accused Abhishek was taken into custody on March 31 and his arrest was shown on April 3. The accused were not even given notice under Section 41-A of CrPC before their arrest. Whereas there is a provision in the law that the accused will be produced in the court within 24 hours and notice will be given to the accused before arrest in a crime punishable with less than seven years. In this case, SOG has disregarded both these provisions. In such a situation, the accused should be released. Even after giving sufficient time, no reply was presented in the court by the government lawyer and SOG. The investigating officer and the government lawyer said that the investigating agency has the right to interrogate the suspect.