Mumbai: In the case of the attack on actor Saif Ali Khan, the Bandra police produced the accused, Shariful Islam, 30, in the metropolitan magistrate court, Bandra, on Friday. The police sought his custody for seven days but the court extended it until January 29. The court approved the request based on substantial progress in the investigation and directed the police to explore other critical aspects of the case.
Facial recognition Is Yet To Be Conducted
Investigating Officer (IO) Ajay Lingurkar told the court that they recovered the weapon but still need to investigate where and from whom the accused bought it. The officer added that Shariful’s facial recognition process needs to be conducted, and the shoes worn by him on the day of the incident need to be recovered and matched with his size. Additionally, they need to investigate his other associates. The officer further stated that the accused has been evading questions and not cooperating with the investigation.
Public prosecutor Prasad Joshi additionally emphasised that the police need to investigate how and with whose help Shariful obtained fake Aadhaar and PAN cards under the name Vijay Das. Joshi added that the police need to identify who supported the accused in India and determine the motive behind the attack, which remains unclear. He also noted that the CCTV footage (specifically the initial footage of Shariful descending the steps) needs to be matched with his real face.
Argument Made By Shariful's Lawyer
Shariful’s lawyer Sandeep Sherkhane argued that the actor’s family delayed taking appropriate action. He questioned the family for not calling the 100 police helpline number; there was a 45-minute delay in informing the police. He said they neither called the neighbours nor accompanied the actor to the hospital. He claimed this delay indicates that the attack was not severe.
Sherkhane argued that the police had already recovered the weapon and clothes, taken fingerprints, recorded witness statements, examined the actor’s residence, and retrieved the CCTV footage, which he claimed does not match Shariful’s. He therefore contended that further police custody was unnecessary. Sherkhane further argued that the police had initially suggested a terrorist angle but had not invoked any related sections.
Additionally, he alleged that the police arrested the accused illegally, without issuing a prior notice, and failed to inform his relatives after the arrest.
Observation Made By The Court
However, the court observed that the arrest was legal. It stated that the service of notice under Section 37 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not apply to this case.The court noted that being a non-bailable offence, the extended custody was necessary for further investigation. The court also observed substantial progress in the matter and the need for additional interrogation about consequential aspects. The offence is serious and worthy of trial by the sessions court. Interrogation and investigation is necessary even for ascertaining the innocence of the accused, if the submissions on his behalf are taken into account, the court said.
