Mumbai court refuses bail to Anil Deshmukh's lawyer accused of outraging modesty of NCP member

A Mumbai court on Monday refused anticipatory bail to a Mumbai lawyer accused of outraging the modesty of a woman member of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP)..The Sessions Court at Dindoshi dismissed the plea filed by accused-lawyer Inderpal Singh and three others who were apprehending arrest in the matter.Singh, who represents former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh in his court cases in Mumbai in both Sessions as well as High Court, has been charged for offences punishable under Sections 354 (assault to outrage modesty of woman), 509 (words to insult modesty) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and for offences under the Information Technology Act. The complainant had alleged that after she became the president of the Mahila Jilha, Singh asked her to “send beautiful women to his office” which was opposed by her. Singh allegedly held a grudge against her for the same.She also claimed that Singh allegedly caused disturbances in her social work and created hurdles in her career.Further, she alleged that Singh had sent an objectionable message about her on a WhatsApp group to which two of the accused businessmen gave responses..The FIR filed against Singh specifically mentioned an incident which took place during a party meeting held in October 2021 where the complainant and Singh were also present.During the meeting, there were some angry exchanges which led to the complainant being manhandled leading to outraging her modesty..Based on her complaint before the Mahila Aayog in Mumbai, the Charkop police registered a first information report (FIR) against Singh and three others..They then moved court for anticipatory bail through advocate TR Patel contending that the case lodged against them was based on false and frivolous allegations and stemmed from political rivalry.Their plea stated there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the FIR.They also alleged that the WhatsApp messages were sent on the number belonging to the complainant’s husband.In the plea, Singh also alleged that since he is representing people like Anil Deshmukh in high profile cases, the present case was being filed against him..The prosecution through Public Prosecutor Imran Shaikh opposed the plea stating that the offences were serious in nature and investigation was underway.The complainant also intervened and opposed the application claiming that the applicants had harassed her previously for not fulfilling their demands. She added that no action was taken though she had highlighted these concerns to higher authorities..After perusing all evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge NL Kale opined that even if the actual chat data of the disputed messaged can be obtained from the concerned authorities, however in order to seize mobile phones used by the applicants for the alleged offences, their custody would be necessary.“Physical presence of the applicants with police is very necessary for seizure / recovery of mobile phones used by them in commission of the crime. In a result, the applicants are not entitled for grant of prearrest bail in their favour” the judge said, rejecting the application..[Read Order]