Advocate Aniket Nikam for Deshmukh opposed the remand stating that calling an elderly persons ailment as misconduct was not right.
He argued that instead of filing the FIR in Bombay, they filed in Delhi even though none of the alleged offences happened in Delhi and everything that was alleged in the FIR happened in Maharashtra.
“What is so sweet about delhi! They are saying there are no special techniques here but only in Delhi, it is surprising,” Nikam argued.
He also pointed out that Deshmukh had been interrogated by CBI for 2 days on April 21 and 22, 2021 extensively.
Thereafter, despite writing to the agency and volunteering to co-operate with the investigation and making himself available for interrogation, Deshmukh was never interrogated.
The CBI got permission to interrogate Deshmukh in judicial custody and they interrogated him for 3 days from March 2 to 4 this year and despite having been interrogated on 4 occasions, there was no custodial interrogation which was sought.
He alleged that CBI’s custody was being sought only because Deshmukh’s bail application was due for hearing in High Court on April 8, 2022 in the money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.
He further submitted that Deshmukh was old and ailing, he had been adviced for shoulder surgery, hence it would not be correct to make him travel to Delhi for remand.
“I have been available since April 2021, I have asked them but they choose to arrest me before April 8 hearing. All these reasons are phony and cosmetic. They have not followed rigours of 41 of CrPC. This court must refuse the remand,” Nikam contended.
Source: Barandbench
