Daijiworld Media Network - Panaji

Panaji, Jan 23: A court in Merces has ruled that charges will be framed against Suleman Mohammed Khan alias Siddique, sentry guard Amit Naik, and Hazrat Bavannavar of Hubballi in connection with Khan’s dramatic escape from the crime branch police station at Ribandar last year.

According to the prosecution, Khan orchestrated a planned escape with the help of Naik while he was in custody of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing land-grab cases. It was alleged that Naik, who was officially assigned as the lock-up sentry, deliberately breached his duty by removing Khan from custody instead of guarding him. The two allegedly fled the police station on Naik’s motorcycle, after which Khan was taken to Hubballi.

The prosecution further claimed that Hazrat Bavannavar knowingly assisted Khan after the escape by sheltering him and transporting him in his car, with the intent of helping him evade arrest despite being aware that Khan had fled police custody.

Khan’s counsel, advocate D. Dhond, contested the allegations, arguing that his client believed he was being officially taken to Hubballi for investigation purposes. He maintained that there was no intention to abscond, pointing out that Khan later surrendered voluntarily. The defence also argued that no formal arrest panchanama was conducted and that a charge of escape could not stand unless the accused was lawfully detained. Since the police themselves removed Khan from the lock-up, Dhond contended, it could not amount to an escape from legal custody.

Opposing this, assistant public prosecutor H. Ghate told the court that sufficient material existed to establish a conspiracy involving all three accused. He said the question of whether the accused had knowledge or intent should be examined during trial and not at the stage of framing charges.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Sarika N. Fal Dessai agreed with the prosecution’s position, observing that there was prima facie evidence on record and that the court was not required to weigh the merits of the evidence in detail at this stage. She held that the issues raised by the defence would be examined during the course of the trial.