Tiger Shroff attack case: Four, including two women, remanded in police custody till October 26

The accused were brought to court under tight security. Pic/Ashish Raje

A Mumbai court on Thursday remanded four accused, including two women, in police custody until October 26 in connection with the firing at actor Tiger Shroff's car in Mumbai's Juhu.

The four accused were initially detained on October 20 by Delhi Police's Special Cell and later brought to Mumbai. They were produced before Mumbai's Esplanade Court on Thursday.

The accused have been identified as Kunal Singh, 21, and Sumit Sorolia, 19, both from Haryana's Sonipat district, and Radha Verma, 23, from Sitapur, and Babita Rao, 23, from Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh.

The arrests were made by the Special Cell of Delhi Police's Northern Range and the Maharashtra Police's Crime Investigation Department (CID) subsequently formally arrested the four in connection with the case.

Accused played a role in supplying weapons: Cops

According to the police, Kunal had allegedly collected a pistol and 20 rounds of ammunition from Amritsar on the instructions of Anil Pandit. Sumit had allegedly accompanied him.

The police further alleged that Kunal later persuaded Radha to travel to Mumbai with the weapon. On October 15, he allegedly took Radha and Babita to New Delhi Railway Station, with the pistol allegedly concealed in Radha's bag.

After the firing incident on October 18, Anil allegedly instructed Kunal to arrange an escape for the shooters, who were reportedly stranded in Mumbai.

Radha and Babita subsequently travelled from Mumbai to Delhi by train.

They were apprehended at New Delhi Railway Station on October 20, while Kunal and Sumit were apprehended in Sonipat, Haryana.

Defence questions evidence linking accused to firing

During the hearing, the defence lawyer questioned the grounds for the arrests and sought judicial custody instead of police custody. He argued that the police had not established the connection between the accused and the alleged supply of firearms and ammunition.

He also questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the two women, arguing that they were being implicated on the basis of police suspicion.

He submitted that call detail records and electronic evidence could be examined without further police custody.

An another defence laywer, advocate Ajinkya Mirgal, argued that the two women were not present at the scene of the firing and that there was no need for further custodial interrogation. He urged the court to send them directly to judicial custody.