Sent to judicial custody for 14 days, Teesta appeals for security in jail | India News

AHMEDABAD: A metropolitan court docket right here on Saturday despatched social activist Teesta Setalvad and former Gujarat DGP RB Sreekumar to 14-day judicial custody after their custodial interrogation ended and the newly constituted particular investigation staff (SIT) didn’t search additional remand.
Whereas heading to Sabarmati Central Jail, Setalvad raised a difficulty of her safety in jail and her advocate Somnath Vats submitted an utility to the court docket, stating that there have been many individuals who have been convicted for his or her roles within the post-Godhra riots due to the efforts of Setalvad’s NGO. A few of them are ladies convicts too, Vats mentioned and urged the court docket to situation instructions for her safety in jail.
To this, public prosecutor Mitesh Amin objected and argued that she shouldn’t be a rare prison or prisoner that she would require safety in jail. If such request is heeded, any prisoner will come to court docket in search of safety in jail. After listening to this, extra chief metropolitan Justice of the Peace MV Chauhan ordered for applicable preparations for her safety in accordance with the jail guide.
Setalvad and Sreekumar had been in police custody on the court docket’s order since June 26 after they have been arrested a day earlier on prices of fabricating proof of conspiracy for the 2002 Gujarat riots.
After their manufacturing within the courtroom, choose Chauhan requested each the accused if that they had any grievance with regard to their custodial interrogation interval. To this, Setalvad mentioned she needed to give statements on just a few events however for this she was stored in custody for six days. “There have been all the time five-six cops on the watch as if I’m a really harmful individual,” she mentioned.
Sreekumar requested the court docket to direct investigators to file his assertion, no less than underneath provisions of Part 164 of the CrPC (statements recorded by a Justice of the Peace). The Justice of the Peace declined the request and mentioned that there isn’t a provision underneath the legislation that an accused can insist on recording of his assertion.