The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) cited two cases in court to support their claim that they had not illegally detained Krishna.
The first case cited by them was of the Bombay High Court between Arun Gavli and the State of Maharashtra. CBI lawyer R.K. Saini argued that if a person is acquainted with the case, he could be called for investigation. The investigating officer of the case can take him along for investigations under section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The second case was of the Madras High Court, between Dinesh Dalmia and the State of Madras. Saini justified Krishna’s medical tests quoting the decision of the court that the medical tests like narco analysis and brain-mapping are just like CT-Scan and MRI, hence the CBI is justified in performing these tests on Krishna.
There were heated arguments between Saini and defence lawyer F.C. Sharma. The defence argued and challenged that Krishna has been put under “illegal detention” by the CBI and has been subjected to “intense torture” and “sustained interrogation” and has also been subjected to various tests. He argued that CBI remand is unjustified.
“The CBI arrested Krishna because of media pressure against his illegal detention and to save their face. The CBI detained him on June 3,” Sharma said.
The defence also cited applications submitted by Krishna’s brother-in-law Bhim Bahadur Thapa to the National Human Rights Commission against Krishna’s illegal detention.
{{/usCountry}}The defence also cited applications submitted by Krishna’s brother-in-law Bhim Bahadur Thapa to the National Human Rights Commission against Krishna’s illegal detention.
{{/usCountry}}