High court raps 'helpless' cops over Bijlani's royal treatment

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday slammed the Maharashtra police machinery for expressing its "helplessness" in dealing with the "royal treatment" being given to Suresh Bijlani, prime accused in the murder of Navi Mumbai builder Sunil Lahoria, in Thane civil hospital.
The HC directed that the in all respects investigation to be taken over by Satyanarayan Chaudhary, deputy commissioner of police (detection), crime branch, and said "none will obstruct him".A division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel heard a petition by Lahoria's son Sandeep against police inaction on his complaint that under the guise of treatment Bijlani had got himself admitted to the hospital in August.
The judges were angry at the senior inspector of crime branch (Mumbai) and superintendent of Thane Central Prison, who hold each other responsible in their affidavits. While the crime branch said it was the responsibility of the jail authorities as Bijlani was in judicial custody, the authorities said they had written a letter to the crime branch.
The judges said both were "shifting blame" on each other and did not think it fit to deal with the royal treatment to the accused. "You are telling us you are all helpless. You are clearly acting in tandem," said Justice Patel.
The judges observed that the police machinery were so helpless that they could not make calls to the doctors or personally go to the hospital to ascertain Bijlani's condition. "This helplessness being expressed is something that is now indeliberate. That they can do nothing…cannot obtain medical update…cannot touch this man,'' said Justice Dharmadhikari.
The judges directed Chaudhary to first take instructions from the dean of J J Hospital, who had examined Bijlani on September 21, obtain his medical reports and inform the court of his condition at the next hearing on September 27. . The court directed all original records of the case to be handed to Chaudhary, and said that he will now be answerable to the court and "none will obstruct him" and he should be "bold enough to tell the court if anyone is obstructing him".
The judges also noted that this is a fit case'' for directing inquiry against all concerned deponents of the affidavits by their superiors'' but said they would decide on this aspect at a later stage.