- (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: (a) That the petitioner/accused at the time of investigation threatened the material witness, viz., the then Investigating Officer; (b) That the petitioner/accused made wild allegations against the then Police Commissioner; (c) That, if the petitioner is released on bail, he being a senior Police Officer may tamper with the prosecution evidence; (d) That, since the investigation is in progress, it is not proper to release him on bail. Hence this second petition under Section 439, Cr. P.C. was filed before this Court seeking release of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302,201 and 506,1.P.C. alleged to have been committed by him.
(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: "Mysore 7 April, 1991. To, The Sub-Inspector of Police (L & O), Nazarabad Police Station, Mysore. Subject: Report of my Life Guard (Swimming Pool) regarding death of unknown person at the Hotel Swimming Pool. With reference to the above, I am to inform you that around 5 p.m., I was informed by the Swimming Pool Life Guard of out Hotel, that an unknown person has died as a result of drowning in the Hotel Swimming Pool and his body has been taken out and kept near the swimming pool. The report of the life guard is also enclosed for your kind needful. I request you to kindly take further necessary legal action in this regard, and please oblige. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this report to you. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/- (Mrs. Inderject Malik), General Manager, Ashok Raddison, Lalitha Palace Hotel, Mysore. End.: as stated" The report given by P.K. Uthappa to the General Manager of the Hotel: "07-04-1991, Mysore. From: P.K. Uthappa, S. Pool Attendant/ Life Guard, Lalitha Mahal Palace Hotel, Mysore-570 001. To: The General Manager, Ashok Radisson, Lalitha Palace Hotel, Mysore-570 001. Respected Madam, At 5 p.m., while I was in the Swimming Pool with some of the members and few children, I suddenly saw someone coming from the Tennis Court side and straightaway jumping into the swimming pool in the deeper side. This man was straight drowning, I ran towards the deep side and called the help of the other staff members, namely, Shri I.S.S. Chatri, Shri Sadhuvan and Shri Peter Furtade, who immediately came with me and jumped into the swimming pool and removed him to the surface and gave him First Aid, like artificial breathing and other First Aid for which we are trained, but he did not revive. The Doctor was informed immediately and within 10 minutes. The Doctor arrived and after examination on him, he pronounced him dead. I do not know the identity of this person. His clothes and other belongings appear to be lying near the Tennis Court side of the Swimming Pool. This is for your kind information and necessary action. Sd/- (P.K. Uthappa).";