Jaipur, June 9 (IANS). Former Rajasthan minister Mahesh Joshi has suffered a major setback in the corruption case related to the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) scam. The special court for Prevention of Corruption Act cases rejected his plea in which he had sought release, terming his arrest as illegal.
Special Judge Rajesh Kumar Dadiya, in his order, said the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had adequately followed the constitutional provisions and the rules of the Indian Civil Defense Code (BNSS) during the arrest. The court held that Joshi’s family members were timely informed about the arrest through verbal and electronic means, hence the arrest cannot be considered illegal.
Advocate on behalf of Mahesh Joshi argued that mandatory legal procedures were not followed during his arrest on May 7 and subsequent five-day police remand. The defense, citing the Supreme Court case ‘Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana’, said that neither written information about the reasons for the arrest was given to the family members nor any written evidence of the same was provided. On this basis, the arrest was declared illegal and a demand was made for his immediate release.
Meanwhile, Special Public Prosecutor Manjula Jain told the court that the ACB team led by Additional Superintendent of Police Bhupendra Singh had reached Joshi’s residence with an arrest warrant. At that time his son Rohit Joshi, daughter-in-law and elder sister were present at home. The officials informed about the action after revealing their identity.
According to the prosecution, Joshi was given time to complete his morning routine, after which he was taken to the ACB headquarters and formally arrested. The information about the arrest was first sent over phone and later to his son Rohit Joshi through WhatsApp. Screenshots of these communication mediums were also presented as evidence in the court.
The court said in its order that the main objective of Section 48 of the BNSS is to protect the right to legal defense of the accused. The Court also noted that Mahesh Joshi’s advocate was present during the remand hearing and had presented his case effectively. It is clear that the family and legal representatives were informed on time.
–IANS
SAK/DKP
