Seeking 10 more days of custody of the four arrested accused in the Kolkata law college rape case, the police on Tuesday told the court that medical, circumstantial and electronic evidence corroborated the woman’s statement.

The four arrested — prime accused Monojit Mishra (31), a contractual staffer who was a TMC students’ wing functionary; two students – Zaib Ahmed (19) and Pramit Mukherjee (20) – and security guard Pinaki Banerjee – were not brought to the Alipore Police Court on Tuesday due to security reasons as a group of women protested in front of the police lock-up on the court’s premises.

The court later extended the police custody of Monojit Mishra, Zaib Ahmed, and Pramit Mukherjee to July 8, while the security guard’s police custody was extended till July 4.

Inside the courtroom, the atmosphere was charged with a large number of lawyers engaging in a heated exchange of words. At one time, the magistrate, Subhadip Mitra, had to leave the courtroom.

Seeking the extension of police custody of the accused, Chief Public Prosecutor Sourin Ghosal emphasised the seriousness of the crime, saying that “after the victim became unwell, they bought an inhaler for her so that they could torture her further”.

Earlier, Raju Ganguly, the counsel of Monojit Mishra, did not move the bail application, and instead submitted two prayers to the court — one to meet the accused, and the second to visit the crime spot.

“We want to cooperate with the prosecution. We are cooperating with the investigation. All the evidence has been collected from the place of occurrence. So, at this point, the defence cannot tamper with evidence. So, why can’t the defence lawyer go? We can also go to the spot, as it has not yet been proven that my client is guilty. All have the right to defend themselves.”

Mishra’s counsel also wanted to know if the police had seized the woman’s cellphone and sent it for forensic examination.

“Has the IO (investigating officer) seized the mobile phone of the victim? Has the CDR (call data record) of the victim and the three accused been collected? Let those be investigated. Our (accused) phones have been seized. Has the victim’s phone been seized and sent to the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)? This is a conspiracy. By reading the FIR, no one will say this is a case of gangrape,” Ganguly told the court.

Rejecting the demand of the accused to visit the crime spot, the chief public prosecutor said: “Under which section, is the defence asking for a visit to the place of occurrence? During the course of the investigation, we have said what we have done. Some places have anomalies. We have to visit the place of occurrence again.”

Meanwhile, the lawyers of the three other accused did not move any plea. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, the lawyer of the arrested security guard, told the court that his client was “just doing his duty”. “There is no involvement of the security guard. He was just following specific directions,” the security guard’s lawyer told the court.

To this, the woman’s counsel submitted that the security guard was part of the crime as he had bolted the gates of the college, stopping the student from escaping. “The security guard bolted the main gate and left the place. He did not protest why his room was used. Instead, he left the place. He did not inform his superiors,” Arindam Jana, the counsel of the woman, said.

Jana told the court that the prime accused, Mishra, had gained the trust of the victim. He lured her to stay late in the college, saying he would need to speak to her as he was offering her the post of general secretary, Jana told the court. “The victim was never into politics. She was in cultural programmes. The accused developed a relationship of trust and gained confidence. She was told that she would be given the post of general secretary. She was told to stay and was taken to that room and violated,” Jana said.