The "unlawful" remand extension of Raudh Ahmed Zilal, in custody over the unexplained fall of Hawwa Yumnu Rasheed, has been appealed at the High Court.
Raudh, 21, was arrested six days after he left Yumnu, 21, critically injured on the roof of a warehouse after she had a fall from a ten-storey building in Male' on April 18. He also tested positive for cannabis after the incident.
He was arrested on April 24 and detained for five days. His remand was extended by a further 10 days and again by five days on May 10.
A reliable source confirmed to Adhadhu that the police, on May 10, could not explain a reason for keeping Raudh in custody. They first requested his remand under Article 60 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
But the defence argued that he could not be remanded under that section. Police then requested to extend his remand under Article 60 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Act. But the defence argued against it.
The proceedings were adjourned and then resumed before the judge decided to extend Raudh’s detention by five days, as it might not be best to release him, considering public interest.
The remand was extended under Article 60 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It was not suggested by the prosecution or the defence.
Under Chapter VI Article 60 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judge has the power to remand suspects in custody pending trial in certain circumstances. However, the Criminal Court ordered Raudh to be remanded in custody for only five days.
titledesc
After Raudh's remand was extended by five days on May 10, he was summoned for a remand hearing again on May 15. On that day, the court remanded him in custody for 20 more days. But Adhadhu understands that the police did not submit any further evidence against him.
The High Court has now accepted the appeal. The defence has raised five points of appeal in the High Court on behalf of Raudh.
- Police presented evidence with reference to an incorrect Article
- Police asked for an extension of custody for a second time, citing an incorrect Article
- Judge set the remand with reference to an Article of his own choosing, not suggested by the prosecution or defence
- Remand duration set by the judge violated the Article referred to by the judge
- Proportion of evidence was raised, even though no new evidence was submitted
Raudh was arrested on charges of being intoxicated at the time of the incident, his alleged involvement in Yumnu's fall and sexual assault. Police also believe he can destroy evidence if released from custody.
However, police later dropped charges of threatening injury by reckless conduct and sexual exploitation against him.
There have been accusations of police lying to Yumnu's family, tampering with video footage and victim-blaming to cover up the case because it involved relatives of politically influential and wealthy figures.
