Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, representing Deshmukh, opposed the extension. He claimed what was pertinent for the Court to scrutinize was whether legal procedure had been followed, and if there was a breach in compliance leading to violation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He highlighted that a year had elapsed since the FIR post which a notice had been issued under section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Chaudhri argued that despite multiple requests by Deshmukh extending co-operation, the timing of this arrest by CBI came just a few days before the ED bail plea was to be heard by the Bombay High Court.
Chaudhri emphasized that the cardinal question in the present case was the necessity of arrest and custody.
“Despite several directives, that people who are of old age suffering from ailments, arrest ought not be made, I have been arrested.. I am not asking for preferential treatment, I am only saying treat me as in accordance with law,” Chaudhri stated.
Chaudhri also responded to CBI’s allegation of ’not answering’ stating that he has a fundamental right to silence.
“He is not bound to answer. He has a fundamental right to silence. Their application comes across that whatever they put is the gospel truth. That whatever they put in the application ought to be considered,” Chaudhri argued.
Advocate Aniket Nikam also appearing for Deshmukh, stated that the allegations of taking constant breaks were all in air, as Deshmukh had co-operated with the interrogation uninterrupted.
Chaudhri further stated that if the interrogation had been conducted at length as stated in the remand, then there ought not be any reason to extend remand.
Source: Barandbench
