PANAJI
Chandigarh-based part-time travel agent Sukhvinder Singh, accused of murdering his wife during a vacation in Arpora in 2019, was denied bail despite his plea citing medical necessity for spinal surgery to avoid paralysis.
The Additional Sessions Court refused to release him over concerns of high flight risk considering his past conduct.
On April 27, Singh fled from Goa to Ludhiana while instructing the hotel staff not to disturb his wife and keeping the air-conditioners at extremely low temperatures to prevent the decomposition of her body. The Goa Police had arrested him from his hometown where he was hiding using a false identity. Interrogation revealed that during a heated argument, Singh slit his 25-year-old wife Alka's throat with a knife in the hotel room and fled.
Meanwhile, during his bail hearing, Singh's lawyer argued that his client required controlled sugar levels for spinal surgery and cited inadequate medical facilities while in judicial custody in Colvale Jail.
The lawyer insisted that the accused’s treatment be undertaken at Jalandhar Hospital. The prosecution countered the submission stating that Singh failed to control his sugar levels during the previous release, when he was granted bail for six months. The State also pointed out the severity of his crime and need for Singh's presence to complete the deposition of remaining witnesses during trial.
Additional Sessions Judge-2 Bosco Roberts noted that when the accused’s lawyer was questioned if the Jalandhar Hospital guaranteed 100 per cent results not resulting in paralysis, there was no satisfactory reply.
Moreover, the lawyer did not dispute the fact that jail authorities “did not leave any stone unturned to ensure best medical treatment by doctors and specialists at GMC.”
“I fail to see the practicality in enlarging the accused on bail, once again, only to take a gamble at the Jalandhar Hospital, when the same operation could be done in Goa… The manner in which the crime was committed, the severity of the punishment and the conduct of the accused, all indicate he poses a high flight risk,” the Court stated. While rejecting his bail, the Court further observed, “To enlarge him on bail would mean to thwart further proceedings as he is likely to abscond and not be available for trial in the case.”
