Pankaj Goel v. State

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) Crl.M.(Bail) No.998/2009 in Bail Appl. No.1680/2009

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim bail on the ground that his mother is not keeping good health apart from the fact that he has been blessed with a female daughter.

2. Earlier also in the month of June, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of interim bail on the ground of his 2009:DHC:3981 mother’s illness and because his wife was expecting. The said application was rejected by the learned ASJ on 02.6.2009.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who has prayed for grant of interim bail for a limited period so as to enable him to attend his infant child as there is no other male member in the family. The absence of the male member in the family is also made a ground for looking after his ailing mother.

4. The learned APP has contested the application for grant of interim bail on the ground that the petitioner may not be given the benefit of interim bail on the ground that his wife has been discharged from the hospital. It has also been stated that the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed offender and it was with great difficulty that he was arrested and if the petitioner is granted bail, he would flee from processes of law.

5. Moreover, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious in nature and the witnesses are about to be examined who may be influenced in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective sides and perused the record.

7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with two other co accused persons had caused the death of one Sachin Arora who is alleged to have been pushed from a building and as a result of the said fall, he suffered injuries. The injured after remaining in ICU of a hospital, had expired on 28.4.2007. The cause of death was stated to be carcinogenic shock consequent to rupture of right artrium of heart followed by hard and blunt impact/force upon chest wall which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

8. Two bail applications of the petitioner, one of which was for regular bail and the other was for interim bail, have already been rejected. The third one was withdrawn by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed offender clearly shows that not only he has a proclivity of fleeing from the processes of law, he may also influence the witnesses which are likely to be examined before the learned Trial Court, in case he is released.

9. I do not consider it to be a fit case to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner for releasing him on interim bail. The petitioner’s wife is competent enough to take care of herself and her infant child and that of her mother in law.

10. For these reasons, the interim bail application of the petitioner is rejected. V.K. SHALI, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2009 RN