June 10th 2024.
In an interesting turn of events, the Bombay High Court made a decision on Monday regarding a plea seeking a CBI investigation into the death of an accused in a shooting case outside actor Salman Khan's house. The accused, Anuj Thapan, was found dead in the toilet of a police lock-up on May 1st. The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Shyam Chandak instructed Rita Devi, Thapan's mother and the petitioner in this case, to remove Khan's name from the petition.
The court stated, "Delete his name. The petitioner has requested to amend the petition and remove the name of respondent 4 as there is no evidence or accusation against him, and no relief is being sought against him." On April 14th, two individuals on a motorcycle fired shots outside Salman Khan's residence in Bandra. The alleged shooters, Vicky Gupta and Sagar Pal, were later arrested in Gujarat. Thapan, along with another person, was arrested on April 26th for allegedly supplying weapons to the shooters.
While the police claim Thapan died by suicide, Rita Devi's petition, filed on May 3rd, alleges foul play and suspects that her son was killed. She asked the High Court to order a CBI investigation into the death of her son. The petition also states that Thapan was physically assaulted and tortured by the police while in custody. Along with Khan, the petitioner had also included the Central Bureau of Investigation as a respondent in the plea.
However, the High Court noted that there were no allegations or requests against Khan in the petition, and therefore, there was no reason for him to be involved in the case. The bench stated, "What is the purpose of making a person who is supposed to be the victim a respondent in this case? We do not see any reason for respondent 4 to continue being involved in this plea. He is not a necessary party." The court acknowledged that the petitioner's main concern was the death of her son, and there was no point in involving Khan in the case.
The petitioner's advocate argued that while they were not seeking any relief against Khan in the plea, he should be a part of the investigation being conducted by the state Crime Investigation Department (CID). However, the court stated that it was up to the CID to decide. The bench also pointed out that by involving Khan as a respondent, the petitioner was diverting attention away from the main issue. They said, "Your focus should be on the main issue. By doing this, you are deviating from the main concern, which should be your priority."
Additional public prosecutor Prajakta Shinde informed the court that a magisterial inquiry had also been initiated, and the CID had submitted a status report of their investigation. The petitioner's advocate informed the court that the petitioner had received a summons from the magistrate on May 24th, even though it was dated May 10th and instructed her to appear before the court on May 23rd to record her statement. The court ordered the magistrate to issue a fresh summons and ensure that it was served in a timely manner so that the petitioner could appear.
The High Court postponed the hearing for six weeks.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
