Delhi Court Cancels Bail of Man for Non-Cooperation in Investigation

A Delhi court has cancelled the bail of a man due to his failure to cooperate with the investigation, asserting that he was attempting to exploit the relief by assuming that the law would not catch up with him.

Additional Sessions Judge Aparna Swami pointed out that if an accused is permitted to disregard the court’s directives and the court must repeatedly remind them to obey summons, it would undermine the purpose of imposing bail conditions, resulting in hampered investigations.

The judge stated that the accused consistently chose to ignore summons without informing the investigating officer (IO) of his absence, and there was substantial evidence to suggest that he had been evading authorities since his release on bail.

Manish Goyal, the accused, had been granted bail on December 21, 2022, with certain conditions, including cooperation in the investigation and appearance before the IO when summoned.

The prosecution alleged that Goyal violated this condition by failing to appear before the prosecuting agency on five occasions. However, Goyal claimed that the accusations against him were unfounded.

The accused had been arrested for allegedly failing to settle bills at the ITC Maurya hotel in the national capital.

The judge noted that the accused was “clearly trying to take advantage of the fact that he has been released on bail, assuming that the law cannot catch up with him as he is protected by a judicial order.”

“Justifications are being presented belatedly by the accused only after the investigating agency had to file the current application for bail cancellation. The medical documents he is now providing were not given to the Investigating Officer. On the contrary, the accused, as an afterthought, attempted to claim that he may have provided them to the Investigating Officer. This claim contradicts the IO’s records,” stated the judge.

The judge stressed that even if the medical documents provided by him were deemed authentic, they did not justify the accused’s failure to prioritize his presence before the IO or at least to notify the officer promptly.

“The department cannot be compelled to file bail cancellation petitions to secure the accused’s cooperation, nor can the respondent be allowed to dictate whether the department is entitled to summon him for examination,” she added.

The judge noted that the accused’s behavior created the impression that the assurances given when seeking bail regarding his readiness and cooperation in the investigation were merely a facade.

“At the investigative stage, prompt compliance with summons is of utmost importance. If an accused is allowed to disregard compliance and to raise various pleas, and if the court must repeatedly intervene to compel compliance, the purpose of imposing bail conditions will be defeated, and the investigation will be hindered,” she explained.

“In this case, the respondent/accused deliberately and casually violated bail conditions and chose not to comply with the repeatedly issued summons. It is evident that accused individuals, when seeking bail, eagerly accept any conditions imposed by the courts, but once bail is granted, they violate and breach bail conditions without hesitation,” the judge stated.

The judge concluded that the accused’s conduct demonstrated a desire to misuse the granted liberty.

“I do not find it appropriate to allow the accused to continue to benefit from bail. Given the deliberate disobedience of the department’s summons, which is itself a penal offense under section 174 of IPC, this court has no doubt that this is a case that warrants bail cancellation,” the judge said, revoking the relief and ordering the accused’s custody.