One held🔗

DNA, May 15, pg 4

Hunt for man after video on Nithya interrogation is stolen

—MK MADHUSOODAN

ceiving end as Halappa eld him in hospital

a trying to block cameramen as the former 📷 MOHAN KUMAR BN pital on Friday

started jostling with each, the police had to intervene to bring order. Some policemen pushed journalists aside. In the melee, the glass door at the hospital's entrance got dam-aged. A photojournalist and three policemen were injured when glass pieces from the door cut their fingers. A lensman from a na-tional daily even lost his imported watch in the confusion.

The mediapersons stood their ground wanting to get the photos. They also protest-ed against the manner the police handled the situation. Victoria Hospital superintendent Dr BG Tilak said a team of doctors, includ-ing him, would examine the former minister. "He has been diagnosed with high blood

Below is the CID’s reply to the petition filed by the Counsel to his Divine Holiness enquiring about the leaked footage. One can see that they have framed MAASTEK for it (and MAASTEK Vijay in turn already had a plan to make Suresh confess the lie that he is the one who stole it)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Senior Division) AND C.J.M, AT RAMANAGARA

C.C No.204/2010

State by Bidadi Police Station (C.I.D Bangalore) ..... COMPLAINANT

AND

Paramahamsa Nityananda Swamy & others ..... ACCUSED

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION U/s 91 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, FILED BY A-1:

On behalf of the Prosecution it is most respectfully submitted as under:

1. That, the application filed by the A-1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and opposed to the law delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

2. That, a three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a landmark ruling has held that, "As far as accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order U/s 91 of the Code would not come till the stage of Defence." [2005 (1) Crimes 1 (SC) - State of Orissa v/s Debendranath Padhi]. Hence, on this ground alone the application filed by A-1 is liable to be dismissed. (Xerox copy of the ruling is enclosed)

3. That, U/s 207 of Crpc, an accused facing criminal trial is entitled to get copies of the documents forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report u/s 173 (5) Crpc and also statements recorded U/s 161 Crpc. Apart from this the Accused is also entitled to copies of the Confessions and statements if any recorded u/s 164 of Crpc.

4. That, the Prosecution has already supplied copies of all the documents and statements of witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses. The position of law is crystal clear as far as the statement of Accused recorded during investigation. Only that part of the statement which leads to discovery of facts is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. In this case there no discovery as per section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such the statement of the accused is not enclosed to the police report submitted u/s 173 of Crpc. Thus, the accused is not entitled to any such statements by filing an application u/s 91 Crpc.

5. That, the present I.O has given a report stating that C.I.D is not having any Audio or Video recordings of the interrogation of A-1 while in C.I.D custody. According to him Sanjay Marketing Company was entrusted with the work of installing Audio, CCTV system in the interrogation room and the said work was in progress when A-1 was being interrogated, but, the proprietor of MAASTEK by name Vijay with the active assistance of his employees committed theft of the Video and Audio clippings and shared the same for wrongful gains with Udaya TV and other channels. In this connection S.P (Admin) H & B squad, C.I.D, Bangalore has lodged a complaint on 05-05-2010 with the S.H.O of the C.C.P.S of C.I.D, Bangalore and a case in Crime No.10/2010 u/s 66 and 84(B) of the I.T Act 2000 and u/s 186, 379, 120-B of the IPC has been registered against Vijay and 4 others and shortly Charge-sheet will be filed in the above case (Copy of the FIR and Complaint, report of I.O is enclosed)

6. Secondly, as per the report of the I.O, no materials and documents were provided to any visual or print media, magazines and internet publications. Only a Press note was given after filing of charge-sheet by the C.I.D. Apart from this nothing was given by the C.I.D to anybody till today.

7. Hence, the petition of A-1 will not survive due to the facts stated above and the position of law as far as section 91 of Crpc is concerned.

Wherefore, on behalf of the prosecution it is humbly prayed that the application filed by A-1 may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.

Place: Ramanagaram Date: 31-03-2011

(K.Janardhan) Special Public Prosecutor -2-

examine as witnesses. The position of law is crystal clear as far as the statement of Accused recorded during investigation. Only that part of the statement which leads to discovery of facts is admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. In this case there no discovery as per section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such the statement of the accused is not enclosed to the police report submitted u/s 173 of Crpc. Thus, the accused is not entitled to any such statements by filing an application u/s 91 Crpc.

5. That, the present I.O has given a report stating that C.I.D is not having any Audio or Video recordings of the interrogation of A-1 while in C.I.D custody. According to him Sanjay Marketing Company was entrusted with the work of installing Audio, CCTV system in the interrogation room and the said work was in progress when A-1 was being interrogated, but, the proprietor of MAASTEK by name Vijay with the active assistance of his employees committed theft of the Video and Audio clippings and shared the same for wrongful gains with Udaya TV and other channels. In this connection S.P (Admin) H & B squad, C.I.D, Bangalore has lodged a complaint on 05-05-2010 with the S.H.O of the C.C.P.S of C.I.D, Bangalore and a case in Crime No.10/2010 u/s 66 and 84(B) of the I.T Act 2000 and u/s 186, 379, 120-B of the IPC has been registered against Vijay and 4 others and shortly Charge-sheet will be filed in the above case (Copy of the FIR and Complaint, report of I.O is enclosed)

6. Secondly, as per the report of the I.O, no materials and documents provided to any visual or print media, magazines and internet

publications. Only a Press note was given after filing of charge-sheet

The sinister inhuman threatening by the police of the accused 'thieves' is evident in the heart-wrenching letter (below) written by the accused Suresh (draft of which was reproduced earlier here) to the chief of the police, highlighting how he was tortured and threatened and forced to make a false confession and how he is on the verge of suicide afraid of the police and their torture.

To, dated 10th June 2010

From,

Sir,

I was working as consultant for M/s.MAASTEK . On 22nd April 2010 Mr. Vijay called me to his office and told me to install CCTV system in COD office, I along with Mr.Venkatesh (Manager) and 2 technicians by name Srikanth and Sagar went to COD office to install CCTV system. We completed installation of CCTV system on 24th April 2010 by evening, in the course of time as there was a problem in video and audio clarity. I called Vijay he told me to copy the footage and send through Venkatesh in pen drive I did according to his instructions.

On 4th Morning Vijay called me to his office and told me that Nityananda interrogation clips has been leaked out please go and clarify. I along with Venkatesh went to COD office, there we met Mr.Charan Reddy and other inspectors. Mr. Charan Reddy told that those who have taken the clip please clarify. I will take you to DG, he will leave you by taking one apology letter. The same day afternoon Mr.Vijay came to COD office and after consulting with his staff he called me and said, if case is registerd in Maastek’s name the amount which has to be given of about 8 to 10 lakhs, CCTV, systems and Recording equipment will be seized and until and unless the case gets solved. He even told to me that you go and approve the guilt, rest I will manage.

On 5th morning along with venkatesh, srikanth and sagar I went to COD office they made us to sit till 5pm, I got frightened and asked my lawyer to come to COD office and after lawyer came and spoke to Mr.Bheemaiah admin in charge he told that if there is need of him we will inform, and afterwards I left COD office.

On 6th Morning they once again called me they told me to wait outside till 3pm and SP Mr.Chandrasekhar,Mr. Marishetty, Mr.Vinayak and others called me to SP Mr.Chandrashekar's cabin and started interrogating me and before this Vijay, SP Mr.Chandrasekhar, Mr.Marishetty spoke to me and told that you approve the mistake because if Maastek company name comes in FIR the amount which has to be given will be held and we will just put one small case and close the matter because you are no way related to Maastek company. In the mean time Vijay ordered his brother by name Prabodh to bring 2lakhs cash which I do not know for what purpose, they took my mobile and there was no communication to communicate either with my family or lawyer.

Around 9pm, SP Mr.Chandrasekhar called 2 constables and one inspector spoke to them and then they took me to lodge by name RAJA GALAXY around 11:30 PM, they told me to enter the register in my own writing, they didn't provide my even food,they took me inside removed my clothes tied my mouth and legs and hit me and told me to agree otherwise we know what to do and they tortured me whole night. They instructed me to tell that I have given the pen drive to Sinchana Media. I was unable to bear the torture and around 1AM .I agreed to say according to their instructions. Next morning on 7th May 2010 on 8:30 AM they took me directly to COD Office. Sir you can actually ask Mr.Shafi and take their call details for that particular time and you would know the truth and even they threatened me that if you tell anybody that you were in lodge you will face dare consequences.

On 7th May 2010 morning I saw Mr.Vijay and SP Mr.Chandrasekhar sitting together and discussing the issue I was frightened and went and asked what is the issue they said nothing serious you just go and meet Vinayak he will look after everything.

I went and met Mr.Vinayak investigating officer who is in charge of this case and made me to sit till afternoon, they registered FIR on my name and took me to Sinchana Media office and told me that we will show you the system there, you just go and open where the video has been copied which I do not know. From there around 6:30pm along with Mr.Vinayak, Mr.Marishetty and one constable they took me to Magistrate house, they told me that if you tell that they took to lodge and hit you we will register another case and you will be in serious trouble, as per their instructions when Magistrate asked me I replied I said they treated me very well and then they took me to judicial custody and arrested me.

I was in judicial custody for one week and iam out of jail now on bail.

Even after case has been registered and iam on bail they are harassing me and torturing me calling me all the time and saying that if you do not agree another

Sworn statement of the alleged thieves of the CID interrogation tapes to the police indicates the whole story of the interrogation tapes being stolen is fabricated:

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE.

CC. No. 19496/2011

Deposition of :Krishnoji Rao

Father name :Tukaram

Age :26 years

Occupation :SDA Drug Control Dept.,

Residence :Bengaluru.

Examination in chief by Sr.APP:-

I know PW-1. On 6.5.2010 as per the directions of our higher officials, myself and PW-1 had been to COD office. During our visit to our COD office, we did not find any third present in the office including the accused who are present today. COD police informed me that they are going to seize a hard disc in connection with the case, hence they required our signature on a document. I did not see seizure of any hard disc by the COD police. I did not see from which system the said hard disc was removed.

(At this stage Sr.APP seeks permission of the court to treat the witness as hostile and permission to cross examine the witness. Order. Permitted to cross examine). Cross examination by Sr.APP:-

It is not true to suggest that on the above date when I had been to the COD office accused were present. It is not true to suggest that later the COD police have seized the hard disc shown to me now from the possession of accused through Ex.P.1 mahazar

Krishnoji Rao.T in my presence and later I signed Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1(b) is my signature. It is not true to suggest that I know the accused very well. It is not true to suggest that to help the accused I am giving false evidence.

Cross Examination for accused No.3 by Sri.SCS advocate :-

I have no any technical knowledge about the computers. COD police did not seize any hard disc in my presence.

Cross examination for other accused - Nil.

Re-Examination Nil.

(Typed to my dictation in the open court).

Clsthu Raw.T. ROI & A C., ni 8/3/13 I A.C.M.M.,

2010-07-18