Additional Sessions Judge Nandkishor More sided with Nimangre’s submissions. The judge observed that the provisions of Section 353 of the IPC were not applicable in this scenario, leading to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary.
Mumbai, Maharashtra: A court in Mumbai granted anticipatory bail for a Government employee accused of using criminal force against a public servant for recording a dispute with a traffic officer and threatening to share the video online.
READ ALSO: Molestation Case| Mumbai Court Summons Prithvi Shaw
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on May 10 at Sathe Chowk in the MIDC area of Andheri East, Mumbai. It was alleged that Anand Nimangre, aged 38 and a Government servant, was observed talking on his mobile phone while driving his vehicle.
Nimangre was initially stopped by the traffic police for using his mobile phone while driving in the MIDC area of Andheri East. The traffic police imposed a fine on Nimangre and also discovered a pending fine against his registered vehicle.
During the court proceedings at the Dindoshi Sessions court, Nimangre’s advocate argued that the essential element of Section 353 of the IPC, which involves the use of criminal force during the discharge of duty, was absent in this case. The prosecution, however, countered this argument by emphasizing the need to seize Nimangre’s mobile phone and vehicle, both of which were involved in the incident.
READ ALSO: Mumbai Court Upholds Release of Hindi Film ‘Maidaan’
The situation escalated when Nimangre allegedly started recording the incident on his mobile phone. This act led to a heated confrontation between him and the traffic policeman. Nimangre allegedly threatened to make the video viral, prompting the traffic police staff to file a report against him under Sections 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Additional Sessions Judge Nandkishor More sided with Nimangre’s submissions. The judge observed that the provisions of Section 353 of the IPC were not applicable in this scenario, leading to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary. Consequently, the judge granted Nimangre anticipatory bail, directing him to cooperate with the investigating officer during the ongoing investigation.
READ ALSO: Mumbai Court: Nirav Modi’s London Property Sale Proceeds to Indian Government
This decision by the court has raised questions regarding the interpretation and application of Section 353 of the IPC. Critics argue that the ruling may set a precedent that could potentially impact cases involving altercations between public servants and citizens.
