(IN CRIME NO. 0014/2007)
Accused produced before me. He has no complaint of ill-treatment at the had of police, perused the P.C.R. papers. Heard the learned counsel of accused and learned A.P.P. learned I.O. and accused in persons. The learned A.P.P. and I.O vehemently argued that the accused involved in Naxal activities in car group and he was also involved it eh encounter took place in the forest of Zendepoar and the present accused was absconded in the present case. Moreover the investigation. Officer argued that some surrender Naxuls given a clue t\of involvement of present accused in the said encounter. He sought the police custody of the accused on various ground mentioned in the application. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that P.C.R. of the accused in not necessary at all. He has also drew my attention on the technical pint and he submitted that ones the charge sheet is filed and the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate then Magistrate cannot grant the police custody of the accused. On this point he relied on the citation of Moh. Ahemed Yasin Mansuri – Vs— State of Mah. But at the very outset that due respect the said judgment of division bench of the Hon’ble Court is over ruled by Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. Dawood Ibrahim Kasker & Ors. Hence the ration led down o the said judgment is not helpful to the case in hand. Considering the argument advanced by I.O. and learned A.P.P. I am of the opinion that PCR of the accused is necessary. Hence the order.
- P.C.R. of the accused is granted till 30/09/2011.
- Copy be forwarded to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadchiroli for necessary information.