Mumbai: In what could spell fresh trouble for alleged engineer-turned-gangster, Kumar Pillai, who finally made his way back to his family in Hong Kong in June this year, a decade after being extradited from Singapore in 2016, a sessions court on Monday rejected his anticipatory bail plea in a 2007 murder case.
Pointing to the seriousness of the allegations, judge PA Sable observed, “In the present case, the accusations are of an extremely serious nature involving offences punishable under murder and attempt to murder.”
The defence argued that nearly 19 years had passed since the incident. It was also argued that Pillai was extradited to India in 2016, remained available to Indian authorities for several years, and yet was not arrested in the present case.
On Pillai’s argument relating to extradition, the court said the legal effect of the extradition proceedings could be examined at the appropriate stage. The order recorded: “At present, the court is only concerned with determining whether the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted. The advocate appearing for Pillai argued that he had been falsely implicated and that there was no material connecting him with the alleged incident. The defence also claimed that Pillai was not physically present in India when the incident took place and that no material showed his presence at the scene.
The defence submitted that the chargesheet and the judgment in the earlier sessions trial against other accused did not record any incriminating finding against Pillai.
The judge said, “This circumstance cannot be completely ignored while assessing the possibility of securing his availability during the course of investigation. Rejecting the plea, the judge observed, “Having regard to the seriousness of the accusations, the nature of the offence, the prosecution allegations regarding the applicant’s role, his residence outside India, and the stand of the investigating agency that custodial interrogation is necessary, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. ” The defence also submitted that Pillai was extradited only for three specified cases and had been acquitted in all those matters. The present crime was not part of the extradition proceedings, and the prosecution never sought extradition in relation to this case, according to the defence. The court was also told that an open-dated warrant against Pillai was cancelled by a competent court and that he was later permitted to leave India and repatriated to Hong Kong after necessary permissions. The order said, “The contention of the applicant that no steps were taken by the prosecution to seek his extradition in connection with the present crime and that the open-dated warrant issued against him was cancelled by the competent court, following which he was permitted to leave India and was repatriated to Hong Kong, is undoubtedly a circumstance which deserves consideration. ”
The court also considered that Pillai is presently residing outside India and that a Red Corner Notice had been issued in the past.
The court acknowledged that the delay and the prosecution’s earlier failure to seek extradition in this specific case were circumstances in Pillai’s favour.