The national capital’s police department filed a charge sheet at Patiala House Court against gangster Deepak Boxer in a case launched under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act.
On July 13, the special cell of the Delhi Police filed the chargesheet under sections of the MCOCA. Deepak Boxer is said to be a part of the Jitender alias Gogi gang’s crime syndicate. In the same case, 15 other defendants are being held in prison, and a charge sheet has already been filed.
The court recently refused to extend the inquiry time on Deepak Boxer. The police then filed a charge sheet against Deepak Boxer. In this scenario, there is a supplemental charge sheet.
He evaded capture in this case and was apprehended on April 15, 2023, after being deported from Mexico in April of this year. Deepak Pahal aka Boxer’s charge sheet was submitted to special judge Shailender Malik for review on July 28, 2023.
In a case involving Deepak Boxer, the Court refused to extend the investigative time beyond 90 days. The court stated that the law requires the investigative agency to conduct the investigation thoroughly and without undue delay. Such an activity cannot be regarded as a mere formality because it includes the accused’s valuable right to liberty.
On July 11, special judge Shailender Malik refused to extend the investigative time. He referred to the related provisions of MCOCA and said “Provision has been made to meet those situations where despite making sincere efforts, the nature of the case, facts and evidence is such that investigation is not possible to complete in 90 days.”
“In the present case however first of all report of Public Prosecutor is completely silent about the specific reasons for which judicial detention of the accused is sought to be extended,” Special Judge Malik pointed out.
The special judge simply stated that certain steps taken in the investigation, such as a certified copy of criminal cases in which the accused Deepak Boxer is involved, could not be collected, details of Income Tax, his properties, and so on, could not be collected, and this cannot be a legal reason for the accused’s judicial detention to be extended.
