Mumbai: The Bombay high court has held the arrest of director of Anchor Group, 50-year-old Hemang Shah, illegal and said that there was no need to take him into custody in such ‘zeal and enthusiasm’. The court also found force in contention that the intention behind his arrest was to recover the disputed amount.
Besides, the high court also found the conduct of the police officers in registering the complaint at post midnight at 2.14 hours on May 14 and also issuing the request for LOC on the same day, as 'unholy haste'.
Hemang was apprehended at Delhi airport as he was travelling to Muscat on May 17, on the basis of the look out circular issued against him. He was arrested and brought to Mumbai. Hemang was arrested on the complaint of his elder brother for cheating, initially registered with Malabar hill police station.
In his petition seeking release against the illegal arrest, Hemang’s lawyers – senior advocate Ravi Prakash with Vikram Sutaria and Sagar Shetty, had pointed out that there was a financial dispute between him on one side and elder brother and father on the other side. The elder brother Mehul had on May 14, approached the police at midnight and the case was registered against him, Hemang had claimed. Hemang claimed that the case was registered when there were efforts taken to resolve it through mediation.
The division bench of justice Gauri Godse and justice Somasekhar Sundaresan, noted that soon after Hemang’s arrest, his elder brother Mehul’s wife had reached out of Hemang’s wife and directed her to reach the office of EOW with cheque book and Mehul would also be there.
It was further pointed out that Hemang’s wife was instructed to reach out to EOW officers and hand over the money. The print out of the chat was attached to the petition. The prosecution however, claimed that the chat was incomplete and cannot be relied on.
The division bench however, noted that on perusal of the chat it supported the contention of Hemang that the case ‘the intention to keep the petitioner in custody was to recover the amount that was sought to be settled in the mediation between the family members.’
Further, while claiming his detention as illegal, Hemang had claimed that he was taken under detention by the immigration department at Delhi airport at 5:30 pm on May 17 and he was produced before the metropolitan magistrate court only on May 18 by 10:45 pm, which was beyond 24 hours.
It was further submitted that though Hemang was intimated about the grounds of arrest but neither of his close relative, friends or a person nominated by him was informed about his arrest and grounds of arrest. Hemang’s legal team had claimed that ‘only to threaten and pressurise the petitioner, he was taken into illegal custody.
The prosecution on the other hand said that the officers of EOW and Hemang reached Mumbai only at 10:30 am on May 18 and after preliminary investigation, he was arrested only at 7:30 pm on May 18, and produced before the magistrate court at 10:45 pm. Besides, the prosecution claimed that his father was informed about Hemang’s arrest.
The court criticized the prosecution and noted that ‘the contention raised on behalf of the investigating agency that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the petitioner’s father and his lawyer is rather surprising and shocking, as there is no dispute that even the petitioner’s father has filed a complaint against the present petitioner.”
