Coal scam: court cancels bail of director of private company



A Delhi court has quashed bail given to a director of a private company in a coal scam case, noting he breached the “fundamental condition of bail” by trying to influence the witness.

Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj canceled bail granted to Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and ordered the accused to be taken into custody. “This court does not hesitate to conclude that the bond granted to the defendant Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal deserves to be canceled because he violated the fundamental condition of the bond,” the judge said in the order issued on Tuesday.

The court had in May 2017 taken cognizance of the breach of Articles 120-B (criminal association) and 420 (deception) of the CPI against AES Chhattisgarh Energy Pvt. ltd. and Agarwal, and granted him bail after appearing in court and seeking redress.

The judge noted on Tuesday that the defendant’s phone call to a witness telling him that people from AES USA wanted to speak to him was an interference with the proper conduct of the administration.

“Of a large number of cases, where witnesses are threatened or conquered, only a small number of these cases come to the attention of the court. A lot of prosecutions fail because of hostile witnesses,” the judge said.

He said only the tip of the iceberg comes to the attention of the courts because in very few cases witnesses inform the court of the defendant’s attempts to approach them.

“In such cases, no leniency is possible because it goes to the roots of the criminal justice system,” the judge said.

He said that not only must the hardships the defendant will suffer in losing his liberty be taken into account when deciding on bail cancellation applications, but the hardships society as a whole will suffer if such Proceedings are ignored or are dropped simply by giving a warning or imposing a fine must also be taken into consideration by the court.

The court made the comments when ruling on a request submitted by lawyer Tarannum Cheema for the CBI.

In its order issued on Tuesday, the court noted that the defendant admitted calling a witness when he landed at Delhi airport from Kolkata to appear as a witness in the case.

However, the defendant was defended by his lawyers and it cannot be argued by him that he never realized his contact with the witness might intimidate him, the court noted.

(This story has not been edited by the Devdiscourse team and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source link


Comments are closed.