MUMBAI: Nearly 19 years after a man was murdered in an alleged gangland revenge killing, a sessions court on Monday rejected gangster Kumar Krishna Pillai’s anticipatory bail plea, holding that his custodial interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation.
He also noted that an open-dated warrant against him had been cancelled after he was acquitted of all criminal charges for which he had been extradited, and that he was subsequently permitted to return to Hong Kong in June this year. The defence further pointed out that Pillai had been extradited in connection with three specified cases, all of which ended in his acquittal, but the investigating agency had neither arrested him in the present case during his years in India nor sought his extradition for it. The judge also declined to decide the legal implications of the extradition proceedings, including the defence’s reliance on the Extradition Act, saying they could be examined at an appropriate stage.
Additional sessions judge PA Sable acknowledged that Pillai, a Hong Kong citizen, had remained in India for several years after being extradited from Singapore in 2016 in connection with three separate cases. He observed that the 19-year delay, cancellation of the warrant and Pillai’s subsequent return to Hong Kong were relevant considerations but could not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations and the investigating agency’s stated need for custodial interrogation.
Rejecting the plea, judge Sable said the accusations were of an “extremely serious nature”, involving murder and attempt to murder. “At present, the court is only concerned with determining whether the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted,” he said.
Pillai is accused of conspiring with his associates to murder Sunil Magde, a member of a rival gang, allegedly to avenge the 1989 killing of his father, Krishna Pillai. However, the court held that these circumstances, despite weighing in his favour, were insufficient to grant Pillai pre-arrest protection from arrest in the murder case due to the gravity of the allegations.
Relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment, the court noted that custodial interrogation was “qualitatively more effective” than questioning an accused protected by an anticipatory bail order. Holding that Pillai had “failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail”, the court rejected his application.
