Pratyusha's boyfriend Rahul was dealing in drugs
Here's the latest update from the world of Bollywood. We bet you wouldn't want to miss this. Read on for details... Says Special Public Prosecutor, Advocate Nilesh Pawaskar
The state government on Friday appointed advocate Nilesh Pawaskar as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) to represent the police in the Pratyusha Banerjee suicide case. Today at the hearing in the Bombay High Court, Pawaskar argued against the plea filed by Pratyusha’s boyfriend Rahul Raj Singh seeking protection from arrest. However the court dismissed the argument and Rahul was granted anticipatory bail.
SpotboyE spoke to Nilesh Pawaskar, an hour ago. Excerpts from the conversation that followed:
You argued that Pratyusha’s case should be treated as a murder case under the IPC 302?
Yes, I did argue this and there are many reasons why I said so. The case has revealed many discrepancies, especially from Rahul’s end. Firstly, many evidences have come on record now indicating towards a foul play in Pratyusha’s case. This is the precise reason that in order to be sure if this is murder, we needed to seek Rahul’s custody.
What kind of evidences as you mentioned above have come to light now? Will that prove that Rahul could be charged for murder?
Yes, there have been some very important revelations that have come up in the investigations over the last few days:
1) He (Rahul) was dealing in drugs and the witness has mentioned that Rahul did have drugs more than twice. On basis of this, it's either that Rahul was a drug addict or a peddler, or administered the drugs to Pratyusha that could have led her to take such a drastic step.
2) Secondly, it's known that Pratyusha was pregnant but aborted. Those who know Pratyusha clearly have given their statement that Pratyusha can’t abort as she was very fond of kids and wanted to have her children soon. So that means we need to figure that was the abortion mutual or forcible. If it was forcible, then that’s a criminal offence and can lead to lifetime imprisonment.
3) Lastly, this man (Rahul) is a liar. As we all know, he recorded a statement that he was partying at home with a girl and Pratyusha till the wee hours. But now, it has been found that Rahul and the girl were partying at Bora Bora (a pub in Andheri) till 2.30 am and then the girl went home. The girl whose name is Jess, mind you, left only in the morning. We have CCTV footage and the girl (Jess) also confirmed this.
4) Also the last conversation between Rahul and Pratyusha suggests that she was upset with an issue that Rahul said was small but meant a lot to Pratyusha.
Also the conversation revealed that her parents were being threatened for life and he was projecting her as a characterless girl tarnishing her image. This small issue (as per Rahul’s conversation) could be the pregnancy and abortion matter that had bewildered Pratyusha.
Despite all these evidences, Rahul still walked out on anticipatory bail?
The judge looked upset while announcing the verdict, but I am very disturbed with it as it is a matter of justice for someone who has lost her life. I will appeal to the state government that this case needs to go to the Supreme Court in order to restore people’s faith in the judicial system. The police should immediately revoke IPC 302 against Rahul Raj Singh.
Image Source: unnmed & instagram/iamprats
SpotboyE spoke to Nilesh Pawaskar, an hour ago. Excerpts from the conversation that followed:
You argued that Pratyusha’s case should be treated as a murder case under the IPC 302?
Yes, I did argue this and there are many reasons why I said so. The case has revealed many discrepancies, especially from Rahul’s end. Firstly, many evidences have come on record now indicating towards a foul play in Pratyusha’s case. This is the precise reason that in order to be sure if this is murder, we needed to seek Rahul’s custody.
What kind of evidences as you mentioned above have come to light now? Will that prove that Rahul could be charged for murder?
Yes, there have been some very important revelations that have come up in the investigations over the last few days:
1) He (Rahul) was dealing in drugs and the witness has mentioned that Rahul did have drugs more than twice. On basis of this, it's either that Rahul was a drug addict or a peddler, or administered the drugs to Pratyusha that could have led her to take such a drastic step.
2) Secondly, it's known that Pratyusha was pregnant but aborted. Those who know Pratyusha clearly have given their statement that Pratyusha can’t abort as she was very fond of kids and wanted to have her children soon. So that means we need to figure that was the abortion mutual or forcible. If it was forcible, then that’s a criminal offence and can lead to lifetime imprisonment.
3) Lastly, this man (Rahul) is a liar. As we all know, he recorded a statement that he was partying at home with a girl and Pratyusha till the wee hours. But now, it has been found that Rahul and the girl were partying at Bora Bora (a pub in Andheri) till 2.30 am and then the girl went home. The girl whose name is Jess, mind you, left only in the morning. We have CCTV footage and the girl (Jess) also confirmed this.
4) Also the last conversation between Rahul and Pratyusha suggests that she was upset with an issue that Rahul said was small but meant a lot to Pratyusha.
Also the conversation revealed that her parents were being threatened for life and he was projecting her as a characterless girl tarnishing her image. This small issue (as per Rahul’s conversation) could be the pregnancy and abortion matter that had bewildered Pratyusha.
Despite all these evidences, Rahul still walked out on anticipatory bail?
The judge looked upset while announcing the verdict, but I am very disturbed with it as it is a matter of justice for someone who has lost her life. I will appeal to the state government that this case needs to go to the Supreme Court in order to restore people’s faith in the judicial system. The police should immediately revoke IPC 302 against Rahul Raj Singh.
Image Source: unnmed & instagram/iamprats
- Trending
__2024-11-22-6-45-35_small.jpg)
