Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Cancellation Petition in IREO Case

Court Upholds Bail of IREO Group MD Amidst Contentions of Misuse and Public Interest Claims

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to Lalit Goyal, Managing Director of the IREO Group, amidst allegations of asset disposal violating court orders. The petition was filed by Gulshan Babbar under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming public interest.

Justice Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul presided over the case and highlighted the established legal principle that only individuals directly affected by the criminal proceedings can seek bail cancellation. In this case, the petitioner, a practicing advocate and prospective home buyer, was neither a complainant nor a victim of the offences charged against Goyal in FIR No.38 dated 11.02.2020, which involved alleged fraud and forgery.

Despite claims of large-scale financial transactions by the IREO Group that purportedly violated court-imposed restrictions, the court found no evidence of bail misuse, such as tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. Furthermore, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had not sought bail cancellation, confirmed that the bail conditions - specifically Goyal's weekly presence before the investigating officer - were being adhered to.

Respondents' counsels objected to the petition's maintainability, citing the petitioner's lack of locus standi. The court referenced previous judgments, including the Supreme Court ruling in Sanjai Tiwari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which reinforced the principle that public interest alone does not grant standing in criminal matters.

Adding to the complexity, the petitioner faced credibility challenges, having previously filed multiple petitions dismissed by the Delhi High Court with costs, and was subject to disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the petition was not maintainable, and no merit was found in the claims for bail cancellation. This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the sanctity of bail and limiting intervention to directly affected parties.

Bottom Line:

A third party, not directly affected or aggrieved, cannot seek cancellation of bail under the garb of public interest litigation. 

Statutory provision(s): Section 483(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Gulshan Babbar v. Lalit Goyal, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782337