top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

Accused trio get 10-day remand

Mumbai: A Mumbai Court has given 10 days police custody to three arrested accused in the firing on Bollywood action star Tiger Shroff in a crowded public place as the investigators attempt to unravel the conspiracy, motives, involvement of other players and related aspects of the sensational case, on Wednesday. The accused trio Rehan alias Sukka, and Phool Singh both from Sonipat in Haryana and Rhitik Kurmi alias Roshan, originally from Begusarai in Bihar but currently residing in Mumbai,...

Accused trio get 10-day remand

Mumbai: A Mumbai Court has given 10 days police custody to three arrested accused in the firing on Bollywood action star Tiger Shroff in a crowded public place as the investigators attempt to unravel the conspiracy, motives, involvement of other players and related aspects of the sensational case, on Wednesday. The accused trio Rehan alias Sukka, and Phool Singh both from Sonipat in Haryana and Rhitik Kurmi alias Roshan, originally from Begusarai in Bihar but currently residing in Mumbai, were brought here from Kota in separate vehicles early today. They were produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade Court where the police sought 14 days’ custody for the accused who are allegedly acting at the behest of the jailed mafia chief Lawrence Bishnoi’s gang. Pleading for the remand, the police lawyers argued that sustained custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the weapons used in the shooting – which the accused had thrown away while fleeing, retrieve two mobile phones which were reportedly destroyed by the accused, besides digging out the entire conspiracy, pinpoint the exact motives and identify other persons involved in the brazen attack. Opposing the plea, the accused’s lawyers Ajinkya Mirgal and Satyabrat Joshi argued that police custody was unnecessary, particularly for recovering the weapons. Mirgal and Joshi later told mediapersons that the accused had already been interrogated at a railway colony during their transit-remand period and were produced before the CMM Court just minutes before the transit remand expired this afternoon. After hearing both sides, the CMM remanded them to police custody for 10 days till October 31. It may be recalled that Shroff, 36, was targeted on the evening of October 18 near Pushpa Narsee Park in Juhu. Despite being a heavily crowded area, the assailants were seen firing at least 5-6 rounds at the actor’s car before fleeing on a motorcycle. A shaken Shroff escaped relatively unhurt, sustaining minor bruises, but his driver and a bystander suffered injuries. Following the incident, the Mumbai Police registered a case of attempted murder and offences under the Arms Act, and launched an interstate investigation involving Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, and later Gujarat and Delhi. The Mumbai Police formed 20 teams to hunt down the attackers, recovered the second-hand motorcycle outside Andheri station where it was abandoned and tracked their journey through different modes of transport from Mumbai to Surat and Kota. Acting on a tech-intel alert from Mumbai Police, the Kota Police lay in wait for them and apprehended them from the general coach of the Pune-Jaipur Superfast Express on Monday morning. Initial probe revealed that the assailants were planning to flee the country after travelling to the borders via Jaipur and Delhi. They were lured by the promise of sneaking them out of India to a foreign country, possibly Canada and rehabilitating them. Three key accused brought to Mumbai from Kota Three key accused apprehended in connection with the firing at actor Tiger Shroff’s car were brought to Mumbai from Kota in Rajasthan early on Wednesday, police said. Police brought them by road from Kota to Mumbai and, upon arrival, immediately took them to GT Hospital for a mandatory medical examination, an official said. Following the medical check-up, the accused were escorted to the Mumbai Crime Branch’s Anti-Extortion Cell (AEC) office for interrogation. The accused have been identified as Rehan alias Sukka, from Sonipat in Haryana; Ritik Kurmi alias Roshan, originally from Begusarai in Bihar and living in Mumbai; and Phool Singh from Haryana, the official said. The Kota city police had handed them over to Mumbai Police, which formally arrested them and produced them before a magistrate there. The court granted transit remand to take them to Mumbai. Meanwhile, advocate Ajinkya Mirgal arrived at the AEC office in Mumbai on Wednesday morning, informing officials that he would represent the accused as their defence counsel in the case. At least two men fired gunshots at Shroff’s car in Mumbai’s Juhu area on Sunday evening before speeding away on a motorcycle. The actor escaped relatively unhurt, while his driver and a bystander were injured. According to Mumbai Police, five to six rounds were fired at the car. A motorcycle, allegedly used by the shooters, was found abandoned in Andheri. The accused fled to Surat and once there, boarded a Jaipur-bound train. The three were supposed to go to Delhi on a bus and then flee to Nepal. The Mumbai Police have registered a case under the provisions of attempt to murder and the Arms Act. According to the police, Rehan was in touch with Anil Pandit, an alleged associate of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang, which claimed responsibility for the attack in an unverified social media post. On Tuesday, the Delhi Police Special Cell arrested four more persons, including two women, in connection with the firing case. Police suspect they were acting on the directions of Anil Pandit, a gangster operating from abroad, an official earlier said. The four accused, identified as Kunal (21), Sumit (19), Radha (23), and Babita (23), were apprehended from Delhi and Haryana. According to police, Kunal allegedly collected a pistol and 20 rounds from Amritsar on the instructions of Anil Pandit, with Sumit accompanying him. Radha and Babita allegedly travelled to Mumbai with the weapon. Following the arrest, the police said the motive of the shooting was being ascertained, while the way Shroff was attacked, the assailants planned to kill him.

UPI Stays Free — But the Rules Behind It Are Shifting

Writer: Sachin Udgirkar
Sachin Udgirkar
Aug 24
3 min read

The real question is whether the cost stays confined to the merchant side or finds its way into prices.

For a decade, UPI has run on one promise: instant, free and frictionless. That promise is now being tested. Parliament has cleared the legal path for a Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on UPI transactions. Untangling what this actually means matters more than the headlines around it.


The Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed by both Houses this month, amends Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. It is, by the government's own description, an enabling provision — it does not impose any charge itself.


It creates a mechanism through which the NPCI-headed UPI and Services Steering Committee can later decide whether an MDR should apply and to what. No such decision has been finalised.


Consumers, including all peer-to-peer transfers and the vast majority of merchant payments, remain untouched. Any future MDR is expected to target a narrow band: merchants above roughly Rs 1-1.5 crore annual turnover, on transactions above Rs 2,000, at 0.05-0.07 per cent — a fraction of the 1.8 per cent long charged on card payments.


The framework is structured to leave close to 90 per cent of UPI-accepting merchants, mostly small and micro-businesses, outside it entirely.


Industry Push

The economics behind the push are straightforward. UPI processed 2,366 crore transactions worth nearly Rs 30 lakh crore in July alone and now accounts for 60-65 per cent of the volume flowing through payment aggregators.


Under zero MDR, all of that volume generates no direct transaction revenue. This turns what should be a revenue line into a cost centre for the companies actually running the rail.


Government incentive schemes meant to offset this haven't kept pace. The RuPay/BHIM incentive outlay fell from Rs 3,631 crore in FY24 to Rs 437 crore in FY26 before being revised up after industry pushback.


Meanwhile, transaction volumes jumped from 17,220 crore in 2024 to 22,830 crore in 2025. Industry estimates put the annual cost of processing merchant transactions alone at Rs 4,000-5,000 crore.


That cost is currently absorbed by banks and aggregators, with no mechanism to recover it. The Payments Council of India has backed the change on these grounds, arguing that sustained investment in infrastructure, cybersecurity and fraud prevention needs a funding mechanism to survive at this scale.


The Key Question

This is where the debate sharpens. The RBI Governor observed, just before the bill passed, that consumers ultimately bear such costs "in some way or another". This would not be a visible fee but through pricing that businesses adjust over time.


That's a structurally different claim from "consumers won't be charged". Both can be true at once: no one sees a UPI fee on their app, while merchants who pay MDR gradually build it into prices, as most costs eventually are.


A Local Circles survey of over 45,000 respondents across 322 districts found that 53 per cent would consider moving away from UPI for transactions above Rs 3,000 if MDR applied to large merchants.


Of these, 27 per cent would move towards credit cards, 14 per cent towards debit cards, and 12 per cent towards cash or bank transfers.


That doesn't mean half of India's UPI users are about to switch. It does mean payment behaviour often responds to the perception of a cost, not its actual, often negligible size.


That is why regulators may need to be explicit about keeping any future MDR invisible at the point of sale, rather than allowing it to surface as a checkout surcharge.


Who Gains

Enterprise-focused payment aggregators and banks stand to benefit most directly, finally earning revenue on volume they currently process for free. Smaller technology-led players may also find it easier to compete in a market no longer weighted towards zero-revenue transactions.


Notably, the big consumer apps PhonePe, Google Pay and Paytm aren't expected to be primary beneficiaries, since they already monetise elsewhere in their business. Any MDR revenue would likely flow to banks and aggregators rather than reshape how these apps make money.


For Users

Nothing changes today. Peer-to-peer transfers and the overwhelming majority of merchant payments stay free, and that isn't in dispute.


What exists now is only the legal door for a narrowly scoped fee to be introduced later on a specific slice of larger merchant transactions. That decision sits with NPCI's committee, not this bill.


The more useful thing to watch isn't whether UPI is "ending" as a free system. Every clarification so far says it isn't.


The question is whether, once a fee is eventually finalised, its cost stays confined to the merchant side. Or does it find its way, gradually and indirectly, into the price of the things UPI is used to pay for?

 

(The writer is an IT professional based in Thane. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page