Nagpur: In the high profile murder of Rishi Khosla which reportedly took place around 12:30 a.m on 21st August, Mickey Bakshi was remanded to MCR. The prosecution had demanded further police custody remand of the accused Mickey Bakshi till 2nd September. The Prosecution contended that the investigation was underway and the PCR of accused was very much necessitated to unravel the truth.
Appearing on behalf of Micky Bakshi, Advocate Prakash Naidu argued that his client has been falsely roped in the said crime and that Micky Bakshi has absolutely no nexus with the commission of the alleged offence. Negating the allegations of the prosecution, whereby the prosecution has alleged that the crime had been executed by Micky Bakshi by engaging the services of the professional killers by giving them Supari to kill the deceased Rishi khosla, Advocate Prakash Naidu argued that before making such reckless and unwarranted allegations, the prosecution first has to stand strong on its foot and the prosecution needs to firstly demonstrate the criminal intention of the accused get the murder executed, coupled with the very basic and essential ingredient of mens rea to commit the same. So also the alleged motive to commit the said murder needs to be pointed out by the prosecution which in their application for police custody remand application was bodaciously lacking.
The police machinery cannot in the absence of any nexus, mens rea, motive, and criminal intention, proceed to mechanically demand PCR of his client and especially when it was not the case of the prosecution that Micky Bakshi had himself committed the said murder. Arguing further, Advocate Prakash Naidu emphasized strongly on the aspect that the mitigating and incriminating chain between the alleged assaulters and Micky Bakshi had to be demonstrated by the police machinery by producing substantial and concrete evidence and statements of eye witnesses or otherwise.
Rebutting the contentions of the prosecution Advocate Prakash Naidu pointed out that matrimonial litigations with regards to the custody of the son, divorce and maintenance was pending inter se between Micky Bakshi and his wife since 2018. Advocate Naidu argued that firstly the proprietary of the wife of Mickey Bakshi to have named Mickey in the commission of the alleged offence was itself cast under a grave cloud of doubt. The wife of Mickey and Mickey were separated from each other since almost two years now. Madhu Bakshi, wife of Mickey had in her complaint named Mickey and also her own brother Sunil Bhatia to be the abettor of the said crime.
Questioning the proprietary of Madhu Bakshi, Advocate Naidu strongly emphasized on the aspect that taking advantage of the murder of Khosla, whom Madhu Bakshi claims to be a friend of hers, she has proceeded to settle her matrimonial scores with Mickey. The minor son of Mickey lives with Mickey and does not even wish to see her and as such, by way of counterblast, she has named Mickey in the said crime and the same is without any genesis and the investigating agency without even verifying the factuals, in utmost mechanical manner proceeded to arrest Mickey within 2 hours of the said crime without even making basic preliminary investigations and without ascertaining any truth. However Micky Bakshi did not have any nexus with the deceased Rishi khosla.
Taking advantage of the alleged murder, the wife of Micky Bakshi appears to be encashing the same by deliberately fastening his name, whereas she herself was not the witness to the murder. The prosecution prayed that in order to establish the nexus of Micky Bakshi with the alleged murder they wanted Police Custody Remand of the accused Micky Bakshi till 2/09/2019. The prosecution prayed that they intended to confront all accused with each other in order to bring out the truth. Advocate Naidu rebutted the said contention by arguing that, the rest of the accused, who according to the prosecution had hacked Rishi Khosla to death were arrested on 24th night.
The prosecution had sufficient time to confront the accused and till date no substantial development was demonstrated by the prosecution and that the PCR was being demanded in mechanical manner. Adv Naidu argued that the alleged weapons used in the crime were seized, the mobile phones, the cctv footages, and all alleged incriminating articles were seized. The prosecution can not force in to make the accused spill out words of confession by demanding additional PCR and that it was now for the investigating officer to investigate the matter and complete the chain of evidences on his own and for completing the chain of circumstances, the PCR of accused was not justified as it hampers the fundamental right and right to liberty of the accused.
The learned Magistrate after hearing both the sides remanded Micky Bakshi to magisterial custody and he was sent to central prison. The other accused Dasarwar was remanded to police custody till 2nd September and will be produced with other accused on 2nd.
Advocate Prakash Naidu assisted by Pankaj Thakre, Homesh Chavhan, Rahul Rathe, Surabhi Godbole, Mitesh Bais appeared for Mickey Bakshi. APP represented the state. Advocate Chetan Thakur represented Dasarwar.