The Maharashtra government justified its decision to remove a special public prosecutor from Khwaja Yunus custodial death case, for seeking to arraign four policemen as accused in it, and told the Bombay High Court that it was not trying to protect the police officials.
The government, through a notification in April this year cancelled advocate Deepak Mirajkar's appointment as special public prosecutor in the case.
The government's decision came after Mirajkar filed an application before a sessions court, which is presently conducting the trial in the case, seeking summons to be issued against retired police officer Praful Bhosale and three other policemen and make them face trial on murder charges.
The application was filed after key prosecution witness, Mohammed Abdul Mateen, had deposed before the court claiming that he had seen Bhosale, then assistant police inspector Hemant Desai and two other policemen assault 2002 Ghatkopar blast accused Yunus in police lock-up.
Yunus's mother Asiya Begum approached the high court earlier this month challenging the government's decision.
Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni yesterday told a division bench of Justices R M Savant and Revati Mohite-Dere that the decision to remove Mirajkar was not to shield the four police officials.
"The decision was taken as Mirajkar's move to file the application was contradictory with the state government's view. The government had already in the past refused sanction to prosecute these four policemen," Kumbhakoni said.
"The government's sanction refusal was challenged by Yunus's mother Asiya in the high court. A division bench of high court had dismissed the petition and upheld the government's decision. Asiya then appealed in the Supreme Court and the matter is still pending," he said.
Hence, in such a situation, Mirajkar should not have filed such an application seeking for the four police officials to be arraigned as accused in the case, the AG said.
Justice Savant said, "The division bench of the high court in its order has clearly said there is no evidence against these four policemen. Now the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The impact of the high court judgement is such that it has curbed the trial court's powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
