Hours after a city court rejected a plea by the police for extension of their custody and remanded them in judicial custody till June 14, CSK Team principal Gurunath Meiyappan and actor Vindoo Singh Randhawa on Monday moved the court for bail. The court in turn reserved its order till Tuesday, on the bail applications of the two IPl betting scam accused.
On a day when the investigators arrested one more bookie with international links from the city airport, Additional Metropolitan magistrate M N Saleem turned down the Prosecution’s plea for extension of police custody of Meiyappan, Vindoo, hawala operator Alpesh Kumar Mehta and fashion designer Prem Taneja and sent them to judicial custody till June 14.
“There is no further ground made out for police custody of the accused and they are remanded in judicial custody,” Additional Metropolitan magistrate M N Saleem observed, as he rejected the Prosecution’s plea for extension of the police custody of Meiyappan, Vindoo and two other accused.
Shortly after the city court remanded them in judicial custody, Meiyappan and Vindoo filed bail applications before a Metropolitan Magistrate who heard the arguments of their lawyers and reserved his ruling till Tuesday.
lawyers Aabad Ponda and Satish Maneshinde, appearing for Meiyappan and Vindoo respectively, argued before the court that in view of the fact that the two had been remanded in judicial custody, they were no longer required for custodial interrogation and they could hence be released on bail.
“Placing bets is a bailable offence. All the sections levelled against him are bailable except three — 420, 466 and 468 of the IPC. It is not the case that Meiyappan forged documents hence 466 and 468 are not applicable,” he argued.
Citing a Supreme Court ruling, Ponda pointed out that the basic rule was that in a case which did not attract life imprisonment, the accused was entitled for bail> “None of the sections under which Meiyappan has been charged with invite life sentence, he said.
“Since my client (Meyappan) responded to the summons issued to him by the police, there is no question of him absconding. In addition, the police have already in their possession taped mobile conversations and other evidence relating to my clients and the question of his tampering with the evidence does not arise,” Ponda argued.
Arguing for Vindoo, defence lawyer Maneshinde said that the charge against his client could at the most be the only of contacting bookies but the Prosecution could in no way prove that he was part of the larger conspiracy.