Cheating: Industrialist denied bail
The Supreme Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application (sought to avoid formal arrest) of a south Delhi-based industrialist whose car had allegedly almost run over a senior police officer from Chhattisgarh last week.delhi Updated: Feb 24, 2011 23:36 IST
The Supreme Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application (sought to avoid formal arrest) of a south Delhi-based industrialist whose car had allegedly almost run over a senior police officer from Chhattisgarh last week.
Suresh Goyal, owner of Goyal MG Gases Pvt Ltd, a Sahibabad-based company, is wanted by the Chhatttisgarh police in a seven-month-old cheating case registered at Raigarh. He had apparently instructed his chauffeur to drive away when the state police team confronted him on February 15 near Bhatti mines. Vivek Shukla, Raigarh’s additional superintendent of police, was hit on the leg. The officer sustained serious injuries.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice JM Panchal refused to entertain Goyal’s request for a pre-arrest bail, forcing him to withdraw the application.
Advocate Vijay Aggarawal, counsel for Ind Synergy Limited (ISL), the complainant against Goyal in the cheating case, apprised the bench regarding the accident case involving the petitioner.
He opposed the bail, claiming a fresh FIR was registered against Goyal following the accident. Goyal reportedly owns
three listed financial firms.
The Chhattisgarh police team had come to the city on the morning of February 15 with an arrest warrant following a tip-off, saying that Goyal would be going to a farmhouse near Asola Vihar to attend a function.
The businessman is wanted in a cheating case lodged by the ISL, accusing him of not executing a contract to create air separation gas plants at one of the complainant's oxygen manufacturing facilities in Raigarh. The contract wasn't executed even as the businessman was paid Rs 78 lakh as advance.
The Chhattisgarh high court had dismissed Goyal's plea for anticipatory bail even as his client contended that the contract was not executed due to ISL's failure to fulfill its part of the obligation under the contract.