Gauri murder: High Court rejects Aurangabad businessman's bail plea

The delay in the investigation because the accused is absconding would not be relevant while considering an application for granting default bail under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC, the high court has said.

The court said that the accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 167 (2), if the charge sheet was filed before his arrest.

Hrishikesh Devdikar, a businessman from Aurangabad, Maharashtra, was arrested on January 9, 2020, in connection with the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh on September 5, 2017.

He applied for statutory/default bail on May 5, 2020. Without passing any order on this application, the special court remanded the petitioner in judicial custody on May 12, 2020.

Devdikar challenged this in the high court, claiming that no supplementary charge sheet was filed against him even 90 days after his arrest.

He claimed that the investigation was yet to be completed and a supplementary charge sheet had not been filed insofar as his role (accused number 18) is concerned within 90 days of his arrest.

The special public prosecutor, however, pointed out that the petitioner was absconding and was untraceable during the investigation.

According to the SPP, several additional charge sheets have been filed in the case. In 2018, even before the arrest, the petitioner was included in the first charge sheet, he added.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that an accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 167 (2) in the event of a charge sheet having already been filed before the arrest.

The court said that after the accused is arrested and available in custody, the investigation is required to be completed in a time-bound manner as contained in Section 167 (2).

“In my considered opinion as dealt with hereinabove, the fact of the accused absconding or delaying the investigation during the period of he being absconding would not be relevant for consideration of application Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPC,” the court said.

The court rejected the petition noting that the benefit under CrPC section 167 (2) would not arise when the petitioner is charged with offences punishable under the IPC, the Indian Arms Act and the KCOCA prior to his arrest.