The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday rejected the bail application of a 51-year-old murder accused, while observing that there were no compelling reasons requiring his presence to take care of his ailing mother and wife.
While rejecting the bail, the single bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta observed,
"Application for interim bail cannot be used as a substitute rather a subterfuge for regular bail, particularly when petitioner's six bail applications have been rejected."
The Petitioner-accused had approached the High Court seeking interim bail to take care of his family. He submitted that his wife was severely anemic and was in need of blood infusion. Further, his 90 yrs old mother was suffering from depression and heart ailments, and required proper medical attendance.
He also informed the court that whenever he was granted interim bail in the past, he observed good conduct and timely reported/surrendered.
Rejecting these arguments however, the single bench observed,
"The mere facts that the petitioner has reported after enjoying the interim bail, can, per-se, not be a reason to grant indulgence to the petitioner, particularly when, this Court does not find any overwhelming or compelling reason requiring petitioner's presence to take care of his mother and his wife."
The court observed that no material or evidence had been placed on record pointing towards any "serious ailment", from which, his wife and mother were suffering.
"The documents on record do not show any major concern much less life threatening disease, for which petitioner's presence for ensuring proper treatment can be said to be required."
The bench further added that the ageing issues, which petitioner's mother is suffering, can well be taken care of by his son and/or his other relatives.
The Petitioner-accused has been in judicial custody for more than 7 years. The court observed that his plea for interim bail had been denied on six occasions in the past. It therefore emphasized that in the absence of compelling reasons, and especially when the application for bail had been rejected several times, the Petitioner could not be allowed to subterfuge the provisions of law.
Case Title: ParasRam Vishnoi v. The Director, CBI
Case No.: Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 3681/2020
Quorum: Justice Dinesh Mehta
Appearance: Advocate Hemant Nahata and Sanjay Bishnoi (for Petitioner); Spl. PP Panney Singh (for Respondent)