Salian Case: Rane, Son Get Pre-Arrest Bail; Court Finds 'Substance' In Political Angle Claim

The state machinery is not expected to deprive any person of his “personal liberty”, held a court here on Wednesday while granting pre-arrest bail to Union minister Narayan Rane and his MLA-son Nitesh in a case of allegedly making defamatory and misleading statements about late celebrity manager Disha Salian. The court questioned rationale behind invoking certain IPC sections in the case, and also found “substance” in submissions made at the instance of the father-son duo, members of Maharashtra's main opposition party BJP, that there has been “some political intervention” in the matter. Their anticipatory bail plea was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge (Dindoshi court) S U Baghele.
Salian (28), a former manager of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput, allegedly committed suicide by jumping off a high-rise in suburban Malad on June 8, 2020.  Six days later, Rajput was found hanging in his flat in suburban Bandra. A case was registered against the Union MSME Minister and BJP MLA Nitesh Rane at the Malvani police station here over their alleged defamatory statements about Salian. Salian's mother had filed a complaint, alleging that Narayan Rane made slanderous and misleading claims about Salian's death at a press conference on February 19, 2022, in the presence of his son. The court, in its order, said it fails to understand prima-facie, as to how certain IPC sections like 509 (whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman) and 506 (II) (punishment for criminal intimidation) as well as section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act, were invoked on the strength of the allegations levelled. 

“The applicants (the Ranes) are said to have been interrogated for considerable duration, as sought to be impressed upon, by the counsel for the applicants. The state machinery engaged the services of a special public prosecutor. These factors, apart from some other factors, which are not being dealt with herein, prima facie depict an unprecedented manner of dealing with the alleged crime, by the state machinery. “That leads this court to find some substance in the submissions canvassed at the instance of the applicants that there has been some political intervention,” the court added. While pressing for the BJP leaders' anticipatory bail, their lawyer Satish Maneshinde had submitted that the father-son duo has become a "punching bag" for the state machinery. Apart from a single statement, there is no other evidence and several bogus cases have been registered against them elsewhere, he had submitted. Maneshinde said Narayan Rane had only stated that a probe into Salian's death had not been carried out properly, and he was seeking justice for her. This was not a case where custodial interrogation was necessary. “The state machinery is not expected to deprive any person of his personal liberty, save as otherwise provided for, by an express just, fair and reasonable procedure,” the court said.

The judge was of view that police machinery or any other probe agency is “not expected to act as a tool in the hands of government” but is expected to work “without fear and favour”. On the allegations made against the duo, the court said they are primarily relating to the publication of defamatory statements. The state machinery can, even otherwise, prove the publication of those statements, by accessing the media resources concerned, the judge maintained. “The nature of the allegations does not ipso-facto (by the fact itself) speak of the gravity of the alleged crime, as sought to be impressed upon, notwithstanding the effect thereof vis-a-vis the informant or the deceased,” the court noted. It further held that “undisputedly”, the applicants are liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. However, notwithstanding the same, their custodial interrogation was not at all warranted in relation to those allegations. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Ashok Gharat, during his arguments against the pre-arrest bail plea, had maintained the accused were not disclosing the source of their information. “The only reason sought to be put forth for their custodial interrogation, in relation thereto, is the disclosure of the possession of the alleged knowledge. Thus, the custodial interrogation, as sought to be paid attention to, is either as the witnesses to such an incident of rape and murder, or as the persons gathering hearsay knowledge in relation thereto, and by no stretch of imaginations, as the persons accused of the same,”  the court said.

The SPP had submitted that the duo has previous antecedents (cases against them)  and are not liable to any relief on just that ground. Gharat had argued that police were “going by fact and law” and not “by political rivalry." There was a through probe into Salian's death and her family was satisfied with it, the SPP said.
Insofar as the existence of cases against the applicants are concerned, it is no more res-integra (a case or a question that has not been examined or passed upon) that the existence of criminal antecedents cannot per se lead to the deprivation of one's personal liberty, the court said. The factual matrix (arguments), that has to be paid attention to, must depict the gravity of the crime as well as its nature, warranting the deprivation of personal liberty by way of custodial interrogation, it noted.

PTI Inputs