Gangster Kumar Pillai denied anticipatory bail in 2007 murder case

Rejecting the plea, additional sessions judge said the accusations were of an “extremely serious nature”, involving murder and attempt to murder

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.

After he was acquitted of all criminal charges for which he had been extradited, Kumar Krishna Pillai was permitted to return to Hong Kong in June this year. (Hindustan Times)

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 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.

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. 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.

Challenging the allegations, his lawyer, Pankaj Kavale, argued that Pillai was falsely implicated, was not in India when the offence occurred, and there was no evidence establishing his presence at the crime scene. He also submitted that no weapon or other incriminating material was recovered from Pillai.

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.

Kavale argued that the circumstances surrounding his extradition, the cancellation of the warrant and his subsequent departure raised legal questions under the Extradition Act, which should be considered while deciding the plea.

Opposing the application, special public prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves submitted that Pillai had absconded after several serious offences were registered against him, leading to a Red Corner Notice being issued on January 18, 2012. The prosecution alleged that Magde’s 2007 murder stemmed from a long-standing rivalry after Pillai’s father was killed in 1989. Describing Pillai as a principal conspirator, it argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary to unravel the circumstances of the murder and establish the roles of those involved.

Rejecting the plea, judge Sable said the accusations were of an “extremely serious nature”, involving murder and attempt to murder. 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.

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. “At present, the court is only concerned with determining whether the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted,” he said.

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.