The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay Excessive Court docket dominated that video recording in a police station doesn’t fall inside the ambit of espionage underneath Part 3 of the Official Secrets and techniques Act. The choice got here as a bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar dismissed the costs filed towards Mumbai police officer Santosh Atare underneath the Act.
The case was registered at Pataudi police station in Ahmednagar district towards Atare and his brother Subhash. The police cited the Official Secrets and techniques Act, however the courtroom famous that part 2(8) of the Act outlined “prohibited locations” and the police station was not included in that definition.
The courtroom additionally clarified that Article 3 coping with “espionage penalties” doesn’t apply to actions taken inside the police station.
Nevertheless, the courtroom refused to quash different costs within the FIR, together with these underneath Sections 120-B (prison conspiracy) and 506 (prison intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose after Subhash Athare said within the criticism that the trio illegally invaded their home on April 21, 2022, when nobody was current besides their mom.
Subhas questioned why just one unidentified case was registered when the intruders allegedly attacked their mom. The Athare brothers alleged that their complaints to larger authorities led to the native police submitting an FIR towards them in retaliation.
Subhas recorded the decision and complained to the police chief. Athares’ lawyer AG Ambetkar argued that as a result of criticism, the Pasadi police registered an FIR towards Subhash and Santosh with ulterior motives.
Extra public prosecutor NR Dayama opposed the withdrawal of the responsible plea and identified that Subhash had performed pointless pictures whereas Santosh had threatened the Pathardi police personnel on the station.
The courtroom granted a few of their pleas however left it to the trial courtroom to determine whether or not different costs must be pursued.