At 4:30 p.m., Maj. Gen. Trairong Phew, Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Taking care of legal matters and cases convened a meeting of investigating officers in the case of Prin Panichphakdi, former deputy leader of the Democrat Party Committing indecent and sexual harassment to several female victims
Major General Trairong disclosed following the completion of the meeting that he knew that the case had progressed a lot Especially in the case at Huai Khwang Police Station, investigators have gathered enough evidence. Today, he asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for depriving a minor and committing indecent acts, but the court did not approve the arrest warrant. by calling the accused to be informed of the allegation instead The court commented that the accused came to see the investigating officer. And there are 4 cases in court and bail in court. In addition, the accused had no escape behavior. Therefore, a summons has been issued to summon the accused to be informed of the allegations at the Huai Khwang Police Station on May 5 at 9:00 a.m.
As for the issue of withdrawing complaints from all 15 victims, there are 12 cases, no one has withdrawn their complaints. And now the officers collecting evidence and interviewing are nearing completion. It is expected next week that further charges can be brought once morest the accused. As for the cases in Chiang Mai and Phetchaburi, each area is responsible.
The police are not worried regarding the case and evidence. Even though there has been an incident with each victim for a long time but other evidence can be blamed on the accused Personally, the accused has completed 3 cases of interrogation, while other cases, if further investigation is necessary will call the accused for questioning, confirming that the police are ready to be fair to all parties Even the accused was able to find evidence to enter the case.
However, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Explain the reason why the court did not approve the arrest warrant but instead issued a summons because he saw that the accused had entered the judicial process for 4 cases and had conditions for bail Therefore, it is not necessary to issue a duplicate arrest warrant in a similar case. As for the concern that the accused said that the accused would tamper with the evidence and the victim The terms of the bail were clearly stated not to mess with the evidence. Otherwise, bail will be withdrawn immediately. which is now set to prosecute There have been no victims to report that the accused had tampered with the evidence.
