Vijay Mallya Gets A Bail Till April 2.

Mr. Mallya is bailed till April 2, and the next hearing, in which the defence will continue to contest the admissibility of evidence, will continue within the next three weeks, at a date to be determined.
The detailed challenge on Thursday involved a highly technical dissection of individual statements and sections of evidence and British and Indian case law.
Lead barrister Clare Montgomery sought to challenge the prosecution’s suggestion that privilege didn’t apply in the case, because of iniquity.
“The prosecution had presented the evidence as a “blueprint for dishonesty” whereas it was “nothing of the sort” but “analysis of litigation” currently under way. “What is being described is the ordinary non-abusive use of lawyers,” she told the court.
Ms. Montgomery also argued at length against the use of 161 statements, which form a major plank of the prosecution evidence. Section 161 of the code of criminal procedure allows any police officer making an investigation to record the evidence of witnesses and are used throughout the prosecution case against Mr. Mallya.
Ms. Montgomery argued that under India’s extradition treaty obligations with Britain such statements needed to be accompanied by underlying signed witness statements, which they weren’t in this case.
The statements were also accompanied by documents such as bank statements “without source and providence” that did little to clarify their direct bearing on the case. Rather than their own evidence being given, the witnesses had been required to sign up to pro-forma statements, which included the unsourced opinions of the officers recording them, she asserted.