Delhi High Court
Pankaj Goel vs State on 18 September, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLICATION NO.1680/2009
Date of Decision : 18.9.2009
PANKAJ GOEL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.P.Luthra, Advocate
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for
the State.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
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
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
