Tiger Shroff Firing Case: Court Grants Police Custody of Accused Till Oct 31
Mumbai court grants police custody of three accused in the Tiger Shroff firing case until October 31 for weapon recovery and motive probe.
The investigation into the shocking firing incident targeting Bollywood actor Tiger Shroff has intensified. A Mumbai court has granted the Anti-Extortion Cell (AEC) of the Mumbai Police custody of three accused individuals until October 31, allowing investigators to delve deeper into the conspiracy and recover incriminating evidence.
From Rajasthan to Mumbai: The Arrest
The three suspects were apprehended in Kota, Rajasthan, following a pursuit by the Mumbai Police. They were brought to the city at approximately 3 am on Wednesday and presented before the Esplanade Court after undergoing mandatory medical examinations.
During the court proceedings, a point of contention arose regarding the exact timing of the arrests. While the police presented their timeline, one of the accused informed the court that he had been taken into custody as early as the morning of October 19.
The Prosecution's Demand: Weapons and Motives
The investigating officer and the prosecution pushed for a 14-day custodial interrogation, arguing that the suspects hold keys to several unsolved aspects of the crime. The prosecution highlighted several critical needs for the extended custody:
- Weapon Recovery: The police are desperate to recover the specific firearm allegedly used in the attack on the actor.
- Digital Evidence: There is an urgent need to seize and analyze mobile phones and other electronic devices believed to have been used to coordinate the conspiracy.
- External Links: Investigators believe the accused are connected to individuals outside of Maharashtra, which would require the police to visit multiple locations for verification.
- Establishing Motive: A primary goal of the current probe is to uncover the exact reason why the actor was targeted.
The Defence's Counter-Argument
The defence lawyers strongly opposed the police's request, arguing that the grounds for custodial interrogation were insufficient. They contended that the recovery of items does not automatically justify keeping a suspect in police custody.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Bhushan Singh v. State case, the defence argued that electronic evidence could be examined without the accused being physically detained by the police. Furthermore, they pointed out that the suspects had already been in police hands during the transit remand from Rajasthan to Mumbai, suggesting that this period should be counted as part of their detention.
The defence urged the court to move the three accused to magisterial custody instead of granting further police remand.
The Court's Verdict
Despite the objections from the defence, the court sided with the investigating agency. The judge remanded all three accused to police custody until October 31 to ensure the AEC can verify claims, recover the alleged weapon, and unravel the motive behind the attack.
As a gesture of legal fairness, the judge permitted the defence lawyers to meet with their clients briefly to take further instructions on the case.