New Delhi, Sep 18 (PTI) A Delhi court has cancelled the bail of a man for not joining the investigation, saying he was trying to take advantage of the relief assuming law cannot catch up with him.
The judge said if an accused is allowed to not comply with court’s directives and court has to ask him every time to obey the summons, the purpose of imposing conditions for grant of bail will be defeated and investigation suffer.
Additional Sessions Judge Aparna Swami said the accused frequently chose to ignore the summons without any intimation to the investigating officer (IO) of his absence and there was ample material to show he was elusive since his release on bail.
Accused Manish Goyal was released on bail on December 21, 2022. The court asked him to follow certain conditions, including that he will cooperate in the probe and appear before the IO as and when summoned.
The prosecution claimed Goyal violated the condition by not appearing before the prosecuting agency despite being summoned on five occasions. He, however, claimed the allegations against him were false.
The accused was arrested for allegedly not paying the bills of ITC Maurya hotel in the national capital.
The judge said the accused was “clearly trying to take advantage of the fact that he has been released on bail on the assumption that now the law cannot catch up with him as he is clothed with a judicial order”.
“Justifications are being given belatedly by the accused only when the investigating agency had to resort to the present application for cancellation of bail. The medical documents which are now being furnished were not sent to the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, the accused, as an afterthought, tried to raise a feeble plea that he may have given them to the Investigating Officer. The plea is contradicted by the record of the IO,” the judge said.
The judge said even though the medical documents furnished by him were assumed to be genuine, they did not justify the failure of the accused to have prioritised his presence before the IO or at least to have notified the officer in time.
“The department cannot be relegated to filing petitions for cancellation of bail to seek cooperation from the accused, nor can the respondent be allowed to hold the department to ransom by now rationing the period for which he can be examined, or by reserving to himself the right to decide whether the department is entitled to summon him for his examination,” she said.
The judge said the conduct of the accused creates an impression that assurances given at the time of seeking bail about he being readily available and of his cooperation in investigation were all eyewash.
“At the stage of investigation, prompt compliance of summons is of utmost importance. If an accused is allowed to refuse the compliance and to raise one plea or another and if the court has to first intervene and ask the accused each time to obey the summons, then even if the accused was to later comply with the summons under the threat of getting re-arrested, the purpose of imposing conditions for grant of bail will be defeated and the investigation will also be frustrated because at that stage promptitude is necessary to unearth facts,” she said.
“In the present case, the respondent/accused wantonly and casually breached the conditions of bail and decided not to comply with the summons being repeatedly issued to him. It is quite evident that accused persons at the time of bail show eagerness to subject themselves to any condition which the courts decide to impose, but once bail is granted they renege and unhesitatingly breach conditions of bail,” the judge said.
The judge said the conduct of the accused showed that he wishes to misuse the liberty granted to him.
“I do not deem it fit to permit the accused to enjoy the benefit of bail any further. Keeping in view the deliberate disobedience to the summons which were issued by the department, which in itself is a penal offence under section 174 of IPC, this court has no doubt that this is a pre-eminently fit case for cancellation of bail,” the judge said while withdrawing the relief and ordering the accused to be taken into custody. PTI UK UK SK SK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.