Mumbai Court Refuses Pre Arrest Bail to Anil Deshmukh’s Lawyer And 3 Others In Sexual Harassment Case

In Mumbai, session court has rejected anticipatory bail application of a lawyer Inder Pal Singh. He is representing former Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh before the High Court as well as the Sessions Court.

He is guilty of outraging modesty of a female member of the Nationalist Congress Party. Anil Deshmukh  is former North Mumbai District President of the party. The sections applies against the accused are sections 354, 509, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and; Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

NL Kale (ASJ of the Dindoshi) rejected anticipatory bail applications of three other accused. Their names are Manishankar Chauhan, Mukesh Poojari and Dhananjay Chavan. Physical presence of the applicants with police is very necessary for recovery of mobile phones. In a result, the applicants are not entitled for grant of pre­ arrest bail in their favour,” the judge observed while rejecting the applications.

On October 7, 2021, Singh is guilty of sending abusive message on whatsapp to the complainant. Three day later in a party meeting when about 20-22 party members were present Singh allegedly made wrong statements against the complainant. Poojari put his hand on her chest and Singh pushed her; then she sent a complaint to the State Women’s Commission, which was sent to the concerned police station, after which the FIR was registered.

Arguing for the anticipatory bail before the court, the lawyers argued that the case against them was based on false and frivolous allegations only due to political rivalry only.The prosecution opposed the plea stating that the offences were serious in nature and investigation was underway. The complainant’s lawyer also opposed the application claiming that the complainant was harassed previously for not fulfilling demands.

The Court Held that:

The court observed that; even if the actual chat data of the disputed messaged can be obtained from the concerned authorities; the custody is necessary to seize mobile phones used by the accused and rejected their application.


Read more blogs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.