E court order Sd Roslyn Durai Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(FAC), Egmore, Chennai – 08.
1
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
EGMORE, CHENNAI – 08.
Present : Tmt. Roslyn Durai, B.Com., M.L.,
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(FAC),
Friday, 24th day of July 2020.
EM.P. No.1236 of 2020
State by Inspector of Police
Cyber Crime Cell
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery,Chennai7
(Cr.No.249/20) …Petitioner/Complainant
V/s
1) M.Senthilvasan,M/a.49,
S/o.Muthusamy.
2)Surendar @ Nathigan,M/A.33,
S/o.Natarajan.
.
…Respondents/Accused
This petition filed on 21072020, and coming on 230720
finally before me, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the petitioner, and Tr.E.Raj Thilak,Aswin Prasanna
A.S,D.Dhanasekar,learned counsel for the 1st respondent,
and, Tr.D.Arun,G.Neppoliyan,R.Sangavi,learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent, and sworn statement of the petitioner
recorded by way of Watsapp video call, and perused the
material filed,and both sides heard by conference call, and
having stood over for my consideration till today, this
court delivered following..
ORDER5
and 08 days respectively, and the period of 1st remand not
yet expired.
6) On perusal of the materials filed, the
petitioner has only stated about the aspects on which the
1
st respondent has to be inquired, i.e. regarding analytical
decisions taken, selection of topic,sponsor
details,funding,financial transactions. There is no
specific grounds on which further custodial interrogation
of the 2nd respondent is claimed. The contention of the
respondent counsel that police custody cannot be asked as
matter of right, particularly in this case, where the
police had 24 hours to inquire, can be accepted. Already
detailed confession of both respondents; 7 pages and 6
pages respectively is on record. From the confession of 1st
respondent, it is clear that he alone is in charge of the
funding and financial aspects of the Channel. There is no
material on record regarding the same, to conclude whether
there is any unlawful organisation or individuals connected
with the same. Hence the investigation is incomplete on
said aspects, and the same can be clarified only by the 1st
respondent. Regarding the 2nd respondent, the contention of
the counsel that the police custody is sought to foist
another alleged confession on the 2nd respondent cannot be
ignored, in view of no specific grounds sought in the
petition. In the circumstances on the discussion supra,
this court finds that the petitioner has made out a case
for police custodial interrogation of the 1st respondent
alone, and not for 2nd respondent. Hence petition can be
partly allowed.
In the result, this petition is allowed regarding6
1
st respondent M.Senthilvasan S/o.Muthusamy, and dismissed
regarding 2nd respondent.
Police custody of the 1st respondent M.Senthilvasan
S/o.Muthusamy, is granted to the petitioner from 240720
to 270720. 1st respondent to be produced before me on or
before 18.00 hours on 270720.The learned counsel for the
1
st respondent shall be permitted to speak with the 1st
respondent once on every day of the police custody through
the official cellphone of the petitioner. The petitioner
shall ensure that the 1st respondent is provided with food,
shelter, and any required medical treatment at government
expense, and shall not be harmed in any manner.
Typed by me and Pronounced by Email on this day the 23rd
day of July, 2020.
Sd Roslyn Durai
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(FAC),
Egmore, Chennai – 08.