Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has set aside the 5-day custody granted by the Sessions Court to a Nationalist Congress Party (NCP – Sharadchandra Pawar) worker who was arrested for sharing a video on social media where death threats were made to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.

A single-judge bench of the high court comprising Justice RN Ladha was hearing a petition filed by Yogesh Rajendra Sawant, who had shared the said video on his Facebook account.

Sawant was booked under Sections 500, 153A, 505(1), 506(2), 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 after a complaint was filed with the Santacruz Police.

On 29 February 2024, Sawant was arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai.

The magistrate rejected the remand application, noting that the video had already been circulated on Facebook, rendering the accused’s custody unnecessary. However, the magistrate granted judicial custody.

The complainant filed a revision application before the Sessions Court, which remanded Sawant to 5-day police custody.

Sawant filed a petition before the high court on the grounds that the Sessions Judge granted five-day police custody for him without giving any prior notice or granting an opportunity to be heard.

Sawant argued before the high court that the order of the Sessions Court lacked justification because it deviated from the established legal procedure. Furthermore, he submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, given that the video broadcasted on the news channel was already in the public domain.

Additionally, he maintained that his sole involvement was uploading the existing video on social media and that the FIR was politically driven, stemming from divergent opinions and ideologies.

The prosecution argued that the remand order reveals that Sawant surrendered a different mobile phone, which was not utilized in the crime, while the mobile phone used in the crime remains unrecovered.

The bench agreed with Sawant's contentions, observing that there was a violation of principles of natural justice.

“It is worth noting that when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was in judicial custody. Despite the possibility of promptly issuing and serving notice to the petitioner, no such notice was issued, and he was not granted an opportunity for a hearing. This omission goes against the fundamental principles of natural justice. This itself is sufficient to warrant interference in the impugned order and as such, this Court does not consider it necessary to discuss in detail the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties,” the order reads.

Case title: Yogesh Rajendra Sawant vs State of Maharashtra & Anr