(1.) Before filing charge-sheet a petition under Section 439, Cr. P.C. was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, requesting for the release of the petitioner. But the learned Sessions Judge rejected the same on the grounds that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of the offence of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life and thus refused to grant bail for the following reasons:
(2.) The practice of this Court in disposing of such petitions is by taking in to consideration whether aprima facie case has been made out either to refuse or to grant bail. This Court suggested both sides time and again not to go for elaborate documentation and not to request to dissect the evidence collected either in favour of or against such petitions. But, unfortunately, in the instant case, unmindful of this normal practice, both sides proceeded to argue the case taking the Court through each and every minute aspect, as when the petition was taken up for hearing the prosecution had filed its charge-sheet and copy of the same was made available to the Court for perusal. As requested by both sides, to see that justice not only is done but also seen to have done, having no other alternative, this Court had to hear both sides at length and to peruse important evidence collected and produced by the prosecution. Both sides argued the case on 5 hearing dates in piece-meal at the rate of l-l hours on every hearing date. In support of their rival contentions, both sides relied upon several decisions of this Court, the Supreme Court and other High Courts particularly touching the points to be weighed at the time of considering application for bail. In view of the peculiar circumstances explained, inspite of the procedure being settled, this Court had to hear both sides in detail. Otherwise, the parties may feel that their view points were not considered or the relevant material either in support of or against the application were not considered. When arguments concluded, certain developments took place that the mother of the deceased sent telegrams and letters requesting the Court to transfer the case. As the allegations were vague and were in the nature of clearly interfering with course of justice, after discussing with the learned counsel on both sides, separate order dated 12-11-1991 was passed rejecting the said request.
(3.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: One Ganesh, Police Sub-Inspector of Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore City, registered a case on 7-4-1991 at 5.15 p.m. in UDR No. 17 of 1991 under Section 174, Cr. P.C. on the complaint of Smt. Inderjeet Malik, In-charge General Manager of the Lalitha Mahal Palace Hotel, Mysore. The covering letter of Mrs. Inderjeet Malik and the report of the Swimming Pool Life Guard of the Hotel by name P.K. Uthappa read thus: Covering letter of Mrs. Inderjeet Malik:
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN