A Dindoshi sessions court has overturned a magistrate’s decision that granted relief to film producer Gunwant Jain, accused of raping a model. The court stated the magistrate took a hypertechnical view regarding arrest procedures. It deemed the police’s actions lawful and emphasized the need for balancing procedural compliance with investigative requirements.
Dindoshi: A sessions court in Dindoshi has set aside a magistrate’s decision to grant relief to film producer Gunwant Jain, accused of allegedly raping a 38-year-old model, stating that the trial court “ought not to have taken a hypertechnical view” regarding the timing of informing him about the grounds of his arrest.
Jain was arrested on November 21 after being accused of sexually assaulting a model under false promises of marriage. According to the police, Jain allegedly administered a sedative to the victim before committing the crime and later threatened her.
On November 22, the police produced Jain before a magistrate in Andheri and requested his custody for five days. However, the magistrate ordered Jain’s immediate release, citing non-compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The magistrate noted that Jain was informed about the grounds of his arrest only four minutes after being taken into custody, deeming this a procedural violation.
This decision prompted the police to challenge the ruling through a revision application in the sessions court.
Additional Sessions Judge D.G. Dhoble allowed the revision application on December 24, instructing Jain to surrender at the Versova police station. The court also authorized the police to arrest him if he failed to comply.
The police argued that the magistrate’s decision was “contrary to law and prejudicial to the investigation,” asserting that Jain’s arrest was conducted lawfully and in adherence to the BNSS.
Jain’s lawyer, on the other hand, argued that his arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural safeguards. It was contended that Jain was not immediately informed of the grounds of his arrest and that his family members were also not notified promptly.
The sessions court clarified that the issue was not whether Jain was informed of the grounds of arrest but the timing of such communication. The court noted:
“The law mandates grounds of arrest to be informed forthwith. The meaning of forthwith is nowhere defined but in my view, it must be within a reasonable time under the circumstances as per legal meaning.”
The judge highlighted that discrepancies in the recorded time were likely due to clerical delays:
“This discrepancy in the recorded time appears to be a lapse of time while typing grounds of arrest under the circumstances. No prejudice shown to have been caused to the accused due to this discrepancy.”
The sessions court criticized the magistrate for misinterpreting the term ‘forthwith,’ stating:
“The magistrate, in the impugned order, took an overly hypertechnical view to hold that the arrest was illegal. Such a view is neither sustainable in law nor supported by the record.”
Additionally, the court emphasized the need for balancing procedural compliance with the requirements of the investigation, cautioning that the trial court had failed to do so:
“The trial court ought not to have taken a hypertechnical view and failed to balance procedural compliance with the need for investigation.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE