 "Four get bail in snooping case, Fabindia refutes charge")
All four employees of a Fabindia outlet near here, arrested and charged with voyeurism after Union Minister Smriti Irani said she spotted a hidden camera trained towards its trial room, were granted bail by a local court on Saturday, which said police had made no ground for their custodial interrogation.
After the initial embarrassment, Fabindia came out with a statement denying that it had placed hidden cameras in any of its stores, including the Candolim outlet which Irani visited.
In a related development, the store manager Chaitrali Sawanthas moved Goa Court for anticipatory bail. The manager, who is not traceable, filed the application through her lawyer.
The judge, in her order, said "no grounds were made by Investigating Officer for custodial interrogation of the accused". She also said the ground for their arrest has not been specified by the investigating agency.
The accused - Paresh Bhagat, Raju Payanche, Prashant Naik and Karim Lakhani - were arrested hours after Irani raised an alarm after spotting the camera on Friday morning while buying clothes.
The arrests were made on the basis of a complaint filed by a Goa BJP legislator. They were booked under IPC Sections 354 C (voyeurism), 509 (intrusion into privacy) and also IT Act's Section 66E (capturing, publishing image of private area of any person without his/her consent).
In its statement on the incident, Fabindia said, "There were no hidden cameras anywhere in the store, including the trial rooms" even as it expresses apologies to Irani "for the inconvenience that has been inadvertently caused (to her)".
It held the camera in question at Candolim store was a part of the surveillance system and was installed in the shopping area.
"There were no hidden cameras anywhere in the store including the trial rooms. These cameras are in full public view and the fact that surveillance cameras are installed is prominently displayed in all the stores," the statement said.
During the arguments in court, defence lawyer Raju Poulekar contended that there was no reason for the police to hand over the case to the Crime Branch, which usually probes underworld-related or sensitive cases.
After the initial embarrassment, Fabindia came out with a statement denying that it had placed hidden cameras in any of its stores, including the Candolim outlet which Irani visited.
In a related development, the store manager Chaitrali Sawanthas moved Goa Court for anticipatory bail. The manager, who is not traceable, filed the application through her lawyer.
More From This Section
Judicial Magistrate Dwaja Patkar, before whom the accused were produced, granted them bail while rejecting the plea of the Goa Police for their custody.
The judge, in her order, said "no grounds were made by Investigating Officer for custodial interrogation of the accused". She also said the ground for their arrest has not been specified by the investigating agency.
The accused - Paresh Bhagat, Raju Payanche, Prashant Naik and Karim Lakhani - were arrested hours after Irani raised an alarm after spotting the camera on Friday morning while buying clothes.
The arrests were made on the basis of a complaint filed by a Goa BJP legislator. They were booked under IPC Sections 354 C (voyeurism), 509 (intrusion into privacy) and also IT Act's Section 66E (capturing, publishing image of private area of any person without his/her consent).
In its statement on the incident, Fabindia said, "There were no hidden cameras anywhere in the store, including the trial rooms" even as it expresses apologies to Irani "for the inconvenience that has been inadvertently caused (to her)".
It held the camera in question at Candolim store was a part of the surveillance system and was installed in the shopping area.
"There were no hidden cameras anywhere in the store including the trial rooms. These cameras are in full public view and the fact that surveillance cameras are installed is prominently displayed in all the stores," the statement said.
During the arguments in court, defence lawyer Raju Poulekar contended that there was no reason for the police to hand over the case to the Crime Branch, which usually probes underworld-related or sensitive cases.