E court order Sd­ Roslyn Durai                            Chief Metropolitan Magistrate(FAC),        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,
(Cr.No.249/20) …Petitioner/Complainant

1) M.Senthilvasan,M/a.49,
2)Surendar @ Nathigan,M/A.33,
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..
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
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
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
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.

You may also like...