A special court in Mumbai has rejected both the discharge and bail pleas of a 63-year-old man arrested in connection with the 1992 JJ Hospital firing case, a shootout that stemmed from a violent gang rivalry between the factions of Arun Gawli and Dawood Ibrahim and left three people dead, including two police constables.

ARREST AFTER 32 YEARS

The accused, Tribhuvan Rampatisingh, also known as Shrikant Rai alias Pradhan, was arrested earlier this year, more than three decades after the incident. He is currently lodged in Mirzapur District Prison. Rampatisingh had approached the court under Sections 227 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge and bail, respectively.

DEFENCE CLAIMS MISTAKEN IDENTITY

Through advocate Sudeep Passbola, Rampatisingh argued that he had been falsely implicated due to mistaken identity and that there was no material evidence linking him to the shootout. The defence pointed out that only two assailants — Subhash Thakur and Brijesh Singh — were identified in the firing that killed gangster Shailesh Haldankar and two policemen at Mumbai’s JJ Hospital in 1992.

Passbola contended that Brijesh Singh had already been discharged and Subhash Thakur convicted, leaving no room for a third accused. He further highlighted that the identification parade was held 32 years after the incident and that the alias attributed to Rampatisingh was wrongly connected. The defence also cited inconsistencies in medical and forensic reports.

PROSECUTION CITES MEDICAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves opposed both applications, insisting that Rampatisingh’s true identity was firmly established through medical and documentary records. He told the court that the accused had sustained firearm injuries during police counter-firing and had been treated at a hospital in Surat, where doctors and eyewitnesses later identified him.

Gonsalves further argued that Rampatisingh refused to provide a DNA sample and had prior criminal antecedents, making him a flight risk and capable of tampering with evidence if released.

COURT FINDS PRIMA FACIE CASE

Rejecting the discharge plea, Special Judge Mahesh K Jadhav, who presides over cases under the MCOC and TADA Acts, ruled that there was prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime. The judge observed that the question of mistaken identity could only be determined during trial and that the evidence on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed.

The court also dismissed the bail application, noting that granting it at this stage would amount to a “mini-trial.” With both pleas rejected, the decades-old case now moves toward a full trial phase.

– Ends