Taking cognisance of a non-public criticism filed by a Bhavnagar resident, stating that officers of the Vadodara metropolis police had allegedly kidnapped and assaulted him in 2020, a court docket has initiated felony proceedings towards 4 police personnel, who have been connected to Vadodara’s Manjalpur police station on the time, in addition to the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Zone III Dr Karanraj Vaghela.
Within the order handed on November 11, Vadodara’s Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace (ACJM) R R Mistry has summoned the officers, asking them to be current within the court docket on December 18 for the proceedings. Vaghela is presently the Superintendent of Police of Valsad.
Based on the non-public criticism filed within the court docket by Ashish Chauhan, who runs a pc enterprise, plain-clothed officers of Manjalpur police station arrived at his store – Shakti Computer systems, Bhavnagar – in a non-public automobile on November 29, 2020, and dragged him out after assaulting him, with out explaining the reason for the motion.
Chauhan informed the court docket that he was pressured into the automobile and when his household tried to intervene, the Vadodara police personnel allegedly intimidated them as properly and threatened to get his spouse, an assistant police sub inspector, suspended from the service.
In his petition, Chauhan said that he was taken to the Ghogha Highway police station in Bhavnagar the place the personnel allegedly filed a “false case” towards him and his brother on the fees of “obstructing authorities officers” of their obligation and “attacking the police”. Chauhan additional claimed that he was dropped at the Manjalpur police station within the non-public automobile the place the personnel assaulted him by way of the evening.
Moreover Vaghela, the opposite individuals named within the criticism are Police Sub Inspector (PSI) BS Selana, Head constable Sana Thakar, and Assistant SIs Mehuldan Khimrajibhai Gadhvi and Amardeepsinh Pratapsinh Chauhan.
Chauhan, the complainant, additionally submitted CCTV footage of his workplace from the place the police officers had allegedly dragged him out, the court docket famous in its order. The court docket has ordered a felony case to be filed below the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 449 (house-trespassing), 504 (intentional insults that provoke a breach of the peace), 506(2) [criminal intimidation involving more severe threats, such as causing death or grievous hurt], 325 (voluntarily inflicting grievous harm), 323 (voluntarily inflicting harm), 427 (mischief that causes injury to property value not less than Rs 50), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 114 (abettor current when crime is dedicated) towards the 5 personnel.
Chauhan’s advocate Darshan Patel informed The Indian Specific that his shopper was arrested in an FIR lodged at Manjalpur police station towards an “unknown accused” in the identical 12 months, pertaining to the sale of a automobile of theft. Patel mentioned, “That FIR…is towards an unknown accused. It’s concerning the fraudulent sale of a automobile of theft and the police case is that the deal to promote the automobile came about outdoors the store of my shopper. The Manjalpur police station additionally filed a chargesheet within the case and ultimately, the felony continuing was stayed by the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom.”
Within the November 11 order, the ACJM took “main cognisance” of Chauhan’s criticism and accredited the felony inquiry within the case.
The order said, “The CCTV footage produced by the complainant reveals that the accused is being taken away in a black-coloured non-public automobile. As per the proof supplied by the complainant, a main cognisance could be made out… Due to this fact, a felony inquiry is accredited within the case and a felony case is registered towards the accused. Summons issued for December 18.”
Whereas Vaghela was unavailable for remark, senior officers of the Vadodara metropolis police mentioned that the police would make a submission earlier than the court docket on the date of the subsequent listening to because it had “not been given an opportunity to be heard” within the case.
