Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Divya Kumar Jain Director Of K.A. Malle ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 13 September, 2019

Bench: Ranjit More, N. J. Jamadar

                                                                     909-WP-4587-2019.doc

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4587 OF 2019


Divya Kumar Jain                                     ..... Petitioner
           versus
Union of India through
Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.             .....Respondents

Ms. Ruju R. Thakkar i/b Udaipuri & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, for Respondent no.1.
Ms. Sangita Shinde, APP for the State.


                                   CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
                                            N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

                                   DATE       : 13th September, 2019.

P. C. :
1                Heard.

2                The petition is filed for following reliefs :

                 "(a)        That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an
                 appropriate Writ, Order and or Direction, directing the
                 Respondent No.1 and / or all of them to forthwith quash and or
                 set aside the Look Out Circular issued against the Petitioner
                 having a valid Passport No.Z4635325 valid until 14 th November,
                 2027;

                 (b)          That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an
                 appropriate Writ, Order and or Direction, directing the
                 Respondent No.1 to not prevent, refrain and or restrict the
                 Petitioner herein from travelling abroad and detaining and
                 arresting the Petitioner herein in any immigration (entry or exit)
                 point in India by interfering with his right to travel abroad and
                 freedom of movement within or outside India;


3                The petitioner contends that he is suspected accused in a FIR

Rekha Patil                                                                    1/4



    ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019                       ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:52:25 :::
                                                                  909-WP-4587-2019.doc

registered by the CBI on 24th February, 2012 for the offences punishable

under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1888. This FIR is registered against 20 persons. One Santoshkumar

Prakashchand Doshi was named accused in the said FIR.



4                The CBI has issued Look Out Notice and this Look Out Notice

was challenged by the said Santoshkumar Prakashchand Doshi by filing

Writ Petition No. 3272 of 2019.            We noted that since 2012 though

investigation is going on, no charge-sheet is filed in the said FIR. We also

noted that Santoshkumar Prakashchand Doshi was co-operating with the

investigation and despite this the LOC has been issued against him. We

relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Cri)

1315 of 2018 in Sumer Singh Salkan Vs. Assistant Director and Ors., dated

11th August, 2010 and allowed the petition and, consequently, the LOC

against Santoshkumar Prakashchand Doshi was quashed and set aside.



5                The case of the petitioner stands on a higher footing than said

Santoshkumar, inasmuch as petitioner is not named in the FIR and still

LOC is issued against him.




Rekha Patil                                                                2/4



    ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:52:25 :::
                                                                      909-WP-4587-2019.doc

6                Mr. Venegaonkar the learned counsel for respondent no.1,

however, states that for want of instructions he can not make any

statement. He seeks time to take instructions and file necessary reply.



7                In view of the aforesaid, petition is adjourned. Stand over to 3 rd

October, 2019.



8                The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits

that the petitioner wants to go to Dubai between 15 th September, 2019 to

17th September, 2019 to attend the International Trade Fair. In the face of

LOC notice, he cannot attend the said fair. In the light of the fact that the

petitioner is not named in the FIR and, at this stage, it is not the case of

CBI also that he is not co-operating and he is likely to abscond, we pass the

following ad-interim order.

                                         ORDER

(i) The petitioner is permitted to travel to Dubai between 15 th September, 2019 to 17th September, 2019 to attend the International Trade Fair;

(ii) During the above period, the LOC issued against him at the instance of respondent no.1 shall remain suspended;

(iii) The petitioner, after the return from Dubai, within a period of one week, shall attend the office of respondent no.1 for interrogation, if necessary;

(iv) The petitioner shall give the details regarding his mobile Rekha Patil 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:52:25 ::: 909-WP-4587-2019.doc number and address where he would be staying at Dubai to the Investigating Officer, before leaving India;

(v) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

                [ N. J. JAMADAR, J.]              [RANJIT MORE, J.]




Rekha Patil                                                                 4/4



 ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019                       ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:52:25 :::