May it please the Court,
This case arises under Section 122(e) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
The accused, Sai Prakash Rakesh, aged 23, was apprehended at approximately 11:55 PM after being found in suspicious circumstances during late hours, i.e., between sunset and sunrise, in an area that is frequently patrolled owing to a history of unlawful activities, including illegal substance handling and other illicit conduct.
On the night in question, the complainant, Anil Ramesh Rathod, had visited Royal Lunch Home at around 10:30 PM, where he initially noticed the accused present in the vicinity. Thereafter, at approximately 11:10 PM, when the complainant stepped out to attend a phone call, he again observed the accused still present at the same location.
At this point, the accused was seen interacting with another unidentified individual and engaging in a suspicious exchange or handling of an unknown object. More importantly, upon noticing movement and attention towards him, the accused attempted to conceal himself and evade observation, which clearly indicates a guilty mind and strengthens the suspicion surrounding his conduct.
Finding the conduct unusual, prolonged, and evasive, the complainant reported the matter promptly at approximately 11:15 PM. Acting on this information, the police reached the spot and detained the accused at around 11:55 PM.
Upon questioning, the accused failed to provide any lawful, satisfactory, or credible explanation for:
- His prolonged presence at the location
- His interaction with the unidentified individual
- The suspicious exchange/handling observed
- His attempt to hide and evade attention
At this stage, it is pertinent that only the FIR has been registered and no charge sheet has been filed, indicating that the investigation is at a preliminary and crucial stage.
In such circumstances, custodial interrogation becomes absolutely necessary for the following reasons:
- To identify and trace the second individual involved in the suspicious exchange
- To ascertain the nature of the object or substance exchanged
- To investigate possible links with illegal activities prevalent in the area
- To uncover any larger network or coordinated unlawful activity, if any
- To recover material evidence and prevent its destruction or concealment
- To verify call records, movements, and antecedents of the accused
It is respectfully submitted that sending the accused to judicial custody or granting bail at this juncture would:
- Seriously impede the investigation
- Enable the accused to abscond or coordinate with the unidentified accomplice
- Lead to possible destruction or tampering of crucial evidence
- Frustrate efforts to uncover the full extent of the unlawful activity
Given the attempt to conceal himself, the suspicious exchange, the sensitive and frequently patrolled location, and the incomplete stage of investigation, police custody is not only justified but indispensable for a fair and effective investigation.
Therefore, the State most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant police custody of the accused.
Much obliged, Your Honour.