Mumbai, April 2012. Over 21 days, five murder cases were discovered, which led to unraveling a spine-chilling tale of cold-blooded crime. Half-naked bodies; missing suspects; a desperate manhunt; connections with the underworld, police, and Bollywood; and a mafia who lured victims - all led to a man named Vijay Palande.
Arun Kumar Tikku, father of the Bollywood actor, Anuj Tikku, was found murdered with lots of knife stab wounds on his chest in his apartment in a posh complex in Mumbai. And as a resident had earlier witnessed the two tenants of the old man, hence the Mumbai police immediately arrested the two suspects. Soon a thorough investigation leads the Mumbai police team to the doorstep of a lavish Bollywood-socialite-cum-crooked-businessman-cum-gangster-with-connections-to-the-Mumbai-underworld, Vijay Palande, who hatched a plan to steal the properties of the Tikkus by luring the son to a trip to Goa and asking his associates to pose as tenants to kill the father of the actor.
Yet another case spills open right into the face of the Mumbai police when the disappearance of a wannabe Bollywood film producer named Karan Kakkad for more than ten days comes to light. In an instant, Palande and his alleged wife, Simran Sood, another fallen model of the Bollywood world, come up, and they are brought into custody. And gradually, the bones of Kakkad are dug up from the Western Ghats, followed by more murders and bones.
The author has focused on the cold-blooded intention of killer-Vijay Palande and the psychology that such time elements in society carry. The killer makes the complete attempt to disappear/destroy the evidence of a crime by disposing of the dead body and chopping them into pieces.
PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED
The first thing after reading the facts comes into mind is that the killer is a habitual offender, he has first committed the crime in the year 1998 wherein he has killed an old businessman, thereafter he was arrested and then convicted in the year 2002, and thereafter he was released on parole, but he escaped then in 2012 he again killed the aforesaid two-person and again arrested by the Mumbai Police.
Recently the Session Court of Mumbai has denied Bail of the killer- Vijay Palande, wherein the Court has held that the accused is the habitual offender.
Bail Granted Cautiously.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Neeru Yadav vs. the State of UP, has laid down the exception in the principle of Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judiciary should be more conscious by giving Bail to habitual offenders. The Hon'ble Court held that being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity.
The Court further held that a history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove are not minor offenses so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of the imagination, can be regarded as jejune.
Moreover, such cases do create thunder and lightning had the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these accused persons to be at large. Therefore, the emphasis is on the exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.
By applying this principle of the apex court in the present case, we can conclude that the Session court has rightly denied the Bail of the accused Vikas Palande, as the accused is the Repeated offender and has been charged for committing the heinous crime.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar 2001-(088)-AIR -3173 –SC has laid down the settled principle of law that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that.
The Apex Court further held that delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eye-brows, sometimes genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect, and regards for the attainment of the Rule of Law. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of the law to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come to society's expectation of ensuring speedy, untainted, and unpolluted justice.
Observing the present case, it has been determined that the accused is the history-sheeter / repeated offender; in such cases, the Court should act cautiously as the offender herein has been charged under offense which has been classified as a heinous crime.
In such cases, the Court shall look after not only the past records of such offenders but also look after the consequences if such offender becomes entitled to Bail.
In the past, it has been held that the seriousness of the offense is not the only ground to deny Bail, that compelling circumstances are needed to cancel Bail, and that the interests of individuals must be balanced against those of society.
The most important thing we have to observe in such cases is fair, reasonable, and speedy trial, where the offender is charged not only for repeating the offense but also for the offense which has been committed is heinous in nature. In such cases, justice should not be withheld for a very long time as this may result in adverse ways that too in public at large. The people start lacking confidence from the system if such delay takes place, that too in those cases wherein the grave offense being committed is repeated by the accused.
Author: Aditya Bhaskar