TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High-Stakes Legal Battle: Interim Bail Denied for Applicant Facing Serious Charges Despite Humanitarian Plea for Family Medical Concerns</h1> <h3>Hitesh Gandhi Versus Enforcement Directorate Office (ED)</h3> HC denied interim bail to applicant charged under IPC and PC Act. Despite claiming humanitarian grounds due to uncle's illness, the Court found ... Seeking grant of interim bail - bail sought on the ground that the health condition of his uncle is getting bad to worse, day by day - HELD THAT:- The applicant, in the present case, is seeking the interim bail on the ground of ailment of his uncle, who, as per the application, met with an accident, on 10th April, 2024 and stated to be in intensive care unit. However, there is nothing on record to probabilize, at this stage, that the doctors have opined that there are no chances of recovery of the patient. As such, considering the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the Enforcement Directorate, in the status report, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for the relief, which has been sought in the application. Moreover, the apprehensions, which have been expressed, in the status report, cannot be said to be unfounded, at this stage. Consequently, the applicant is not able to make out a case for grant of interim bail, at this stage. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue presented and considered in this judgment is whether the applicant, who is currently in judicial custody, is entitled to interim bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) due to the serious illness of his uncle, who is in intensive care following an accident. The Court also considered the Enforcement Directorate's opposition to the bail application, which is based on concerns that the applicant might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe application for interim bail is filed under Section 439 of the CrPC, which grants the High Court or Court of Session the power to release an accused on bail. The applicant is charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), which include serious offenses such as criminal breach of trust, forgery, and corruption.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court examined the applicant's request for interim bail based on humanitarian grounds, specifically the critical health condition of his uncle. The Court noted that the applicant had previously sought bail, which was denied on January 12, 2024. The Court scrutinized the medical evidence provided, including a certificate from Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, but found no conclusive medical opinion indicating that the uncle's condition was terminal or that there was no chance of recovery.Key Evidence and FindingsThe applicant provided a medical certificate to substantiate his claim regarding his uncle's health. However, the Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the uncle's condition warranted the applicant's release on bail. Additionally, the Enforcement Directorate's status report highlighted concerns about potential witness tampering and evidence manipulation if the applicant were released.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC, weighing the humanitarian grounds against the potential risks posed by the applicant's release. The Court determined that the evidence presented did not justify overriding the risks identified by the Enforcement Directorate, such as the possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Court considered the applicant's argument for interim bail due to his uncle's critical condition but found it insufficiently compelling in light of the Enforcement Directorate's concerns. The Court acknowledged the applicant's undertakings but concluded that these did not mitigate the risks outlined in the status report.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the applicant failed to make a case for interim bail. The Court found the Enforcement Directorate's apprehensions to be reasonable and not unfounded, thereby deciding against granting the relief sought by the applicant.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the applicant is not entitled to interim bail under the circumstances presented. The Court emphasized that the absence of conclusive medical evidence regarding the uncle's condition and the valid concerns raised by the Enforcement Directorate precluded the grant of bail. The Court stated, 'Considering the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the Enforcement Directorate, in the status report, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for the relief, which has been sought in the application.'The Court directed the jail authorities to facilitate a visit for the applicant to the hospital where his uncle is admitted, under police custody, thereby balancing the humanitarian aspect with the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
