Orissa High Court
Shyam Vasudev Rao vs Republic Of India (C.B.I.) ......... ... on 8 April, 2024
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLREV No.672 of 2023
An application under section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in connection with SPE Case No.05 of 2014 pending in
the Court of learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar.
-----------------------------
Shyam Vasudev Rao ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
Republic of India (C.B.I.) ......... Opp. Party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya
Advocate
For Opp. party: - Mr. Sarthak Nayak
Special Public Prosecutor
(C.B.I.)
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
........................................................................................................................
Date of Argument: 05.04.2024 Date of Order: 08.04.2024
........................................................................................................................
S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Shyam Vasudev Rao filed a petition under
section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court i.e. Special
C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No.05 of 2014 for
release of his passport in his favour which was registered as
Criminal Misc. Case No.15/714 of 2023.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
The learned Public Prosecutor, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar
filed objection to such petition.
The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated
13.12.2023, rejected the petition, hence this revision.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of
the summons issued by the learned trial Court, he appeared
before the learned trial Court on 16.10.2023 and applied for bail
and on the very day, he was directed to be released on bail
subject to certain terms and conditions and one of such
conditions was that he shall surrender his passport before the
Court, if not surrendered earlier and that if he did not have any
passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Court.
The petitioner filed his original passport bearing no.Z6385004
and also complied with other terms and conditions and
accordingly, his bail bonds were accepted.
3. In the petition filed under section 457 of Cr.P.C., it is
stated by the petitioner that in the month of December 2022, the
petitioner renewed his contract with Maastricht University,
Maastricht, Netherlands to work as a visiting Professor and do
some research work and in view of such contract, he was
required to travel abroad at least three times in a year as per the
requisition issued by the said University. The petitioner booked a
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 2 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
ticket to Netherlands through Air India on 03.11.2023. It is
further stated in the petition that since his passport could not be
released in his favour, the petitioner had to cancel the ticket. It
is further stated that the son and daughter-in-law of the
petitioner are staying in Sweden after their marriage and they
have been blessed with a child and the wife of the petitioner is
also currently staying with them in Sweden. It is further stated
that in between 2019 to May 2023, the petitioner had travelled
aboard for attending official work in Maastricht University,
Netherlands and also attending his family in Sweden. It is further
stated that in order to avail his professional avocation and family
commitment, there was necessity to go abroad. The petitioner is
one of the Directors in M/s. Forus Health Pvt. Limited and he has
held important position in several multinational blue chip
companies and the petitioner is having permanent business
establishment in India and he is the head of the institution and
therefore, there is absolutely no chance of his absconding to
evade trial. It is further stated that if the passport is released in
favour of the petitioner for a period of two months, it would
enable him to attend his needy family members and to discharge
his duty relating to his assignments. The petitioner gave an
undertaking in the petition to surrender his passport before the
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 3 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
learned trial Court immediately after returning from aboard.
Documents were annexed in support of the averments taken in
the petition.
4. The learned P.P., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar opposed the
prayer made in the petition filed by the petitioner under section
457 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that if the passport would be
released in favour the petitioner, he might flee away from the
clutches of law thereby jeopardizing the smooth progress of trial.
It was also contended that the petitioner has misappropriated
public money and there is prima facie material against him for
commission of economic offence and the release of the passport
in favour of the petitioner would result in miscarriage of justice.
5. The learned trial Court after considering the
contentions raised by the respective parties, came to hold that
as per one of the conditions of the bail order, the petitioner had
deposited his passport before the Court on 16.10.2023 and since
the allegations against the petitioner showed that he had
misappropriated a huge amount of money received from the
gullible investors, by entering into criminal conspiracy with other
co-accused persons, he should not be allowed to move away
from the reach of the Court. The learned trial Court further held
that another condition of the bail order was that the petitioner
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 4 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
should not default in personal appearance before the learned
trial Court as and when required and therefore, the learned trial
Court was not inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner
and rejected the petition.
6. Mr. A.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra reported in (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases
77 and Srikant Mohta -Vrs.- Republic of India (C.B.I.)
reported in (2023) SCC Online Orissa 13 and contended that
during pendency of investigation and even after submission of
charge sheet, the petitioner had gone abroad and returned back
to India and even therefore, the apprehension that he would flee
away from the course of justice is totally baseless, misconceived
and unsustainable. Even though there is provision under section
10-A of the Passports Act, 1967 for suspension of passport in
certain cases if it is necessary in the public interest so to do, but
no such step has been taken by the Central Govt. or any
designated officer and since the petitioner is likely to suffer
irreparable loss and injury in case the passport is not released in
his favour and he is not permitted to go aboard, the impugned
order should be set aside and the passport of the petitioner be
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 5 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
handed over to him giving permission to go aboard. He placed
reliance in the case of Suresh Nanda -Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in
(2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 674.
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the Republic of India (C.B.I.) filed counter affidavit
to the revision petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner
was the Director of M/s. Forus Health Pvt. Ltd. and he in criminal
conspiracy with the Directors of accused company M/s. Tower
Infotech Ltd., siphoned off the funds illegally collected by the
accused company M/s. Tower Infotech Ltd. from the poor and
gullible investors and subsequently misappropriated the same, in
an unscrupulous way. He argued that in case of petitioner does
not return back to India, the progress of trial would be
hampered.
7. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that on
26.12.2022 supplementary charge sheet was submitted against
the petitioner before the learned trial Court under section 120-B
read with sections 420/409 of the I.P.C. and sections 4, 5 & 6 of
Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
During course of investigation, it was found that the accused
directors of the accused company M/s. Tower Infotech Ltd., in
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 6 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
criminal conspiracy with the directors of M/s. Forus Health Pvt.
Ltd., Shri K. Chandrasekhar and the petitioner Shyam Vasudeva
Rao and others, pursuant to a fraudulent agreement have
dishonestly siphoned off the funds to the tune of Rs.6 Crores,
illegally collected by the accused company M/s. Tower Infotech
Ltd. from the poor and gullible investors and subsequently
misappropriated the same, in an unscrupulous way, with the
pretext of getting exclusivity of selling right of the product
"3netra", which was not at all matured for selling at the time of
this transaction. This illegally diverted money was subsequently
channelised and routed back to the directors of the above
mentioned two companies, in a pre-planned way. This act caused
wrongful gain to the directors of M/s. Forus Health Pvt. Ltd. viz.
Shri K. Chandrasekhar and the petitioner Shyam Vasudeva Rao
as well as the accused directors of Tower Group of companies
and corresponding wrongful loss to the investors whose invested
money were deposited in the said bank accounts. In the charge
sheet, the petitioner was shown as 'not arrested'.
The learned trial Court, on receipt of such charge
sheet, took cognizance of offences and issued summons to the
petitioner. The petitioner in obedience to the summons,
appeared before the learned trial Court on 16.10.2023 and
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 7 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
applied for bail and the learned trial Court observed that the
petitioner had not avoided the process of law and hence there is
less chance of his absconding during trial and relying on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aman Preet Singh
-Vrs.- C.B.I. reported in (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases
764, wherein it is held that it is appropriate that the accused is
released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been
arrested during investigation or not been produced in custody is
itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail, the learned
trial Court granted bail to the petitioner with following terms and
conditions:-
i) He shall furnish cash security of Rs.5,00,000/-
(rupees five lakhs);
ii) He shall surrender his passport before the Court,
if not surrender earlier and if he does not have
passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect
before the Court;
iii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever;
iv) He shall not default in personal attendance of
Court as and when required.
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 8 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
The petitioner complied with all the terms and
conditions and also file his original passport and accordingly his
bail bonds were accepted.
8. At this stage, it is felt necessary to take note of the
ratio laid down in the citations relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
In the case of Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla
(supra), it is held as follows:-
"14. The language of Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
which uses the expression "any condition.....
otherwise in the interest of justice" has been
construed in several decisions of this Court.
Though the competent court is empowered to
exercise its discretion to impose "any condition"
for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and
439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has
to be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of
the accused and ensure that the liberty of the
accused is not misused to impede the
investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct
the course of justice. Several decisions of this
Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions
which can legitimately be imposed both in the
context of bail and anticipatory bail.
xxx xxx xxx
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
22. The private complaint which is the genesis of
the present proceedings was instituted in
January 2014. The gravamen of the allegation is
that the appellant has forged and fabricated the
power of attorney of 19-12-2011 of his brother
Shalin. Mr Jha submits that, as a matter of fact,
the power of attorney has not been used at any
point; his brother was present in India at the
time when conveyance was entered into; and
that his brother has never raised any objection.
However, we are not inclined to go into these
factual aspects at the present stage. It would
suffice to note that the co-accused was granted
bail by the Sessions Judge, Thane on 16-4-2018.
We are called upon to decide only whether the
appellant should be permitted to travel to the US
for eight weeks. In evaluating this issue, we
must have regard to the nature of the
allegations, the conduct of the appellant and
above all, the need to ensure that he does not
pose a risk of evading the prosecution. The
details which have been furnished to the Court
by the appellant, indicate that he has regularly
travelled between the US and India on as many
as sixteen occasions between 2015 and 2020.
He has maintained a close contact with India.
The view of the High Court that he has no
contact with India is contrary to the material on
record. The lodging of an FIR should not in the
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 10 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
facts of the present case be a bar on the travel
of the appellant to the US for eight weeks to
attend to the business of revalidating his Green
Card. The conditions which a court imposes for
the grant of bail -- in this case temporary bail --
have to balance the public interest in the
enforcement of criminal justice with the rights of
the accused. The human right to dignity and the
protection of constitutional safeguards should
not become illusory by the imposition of
conditions which are disproportionate to the
need to secure the presence of the accused, the
proper course of investigation and eventually to
ensure a fair trial. The conditions which are
imposed by the court must bear a proportional
relationship to the purpose of imposing the
conditions. The nature of the risk which is posed
by the grant of permission as sought in this case
must be carefully evaluated in each case.
xxx xxx xxx
25. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute
as well as the issue as to whether the appellant
is likely to flee from justice if he were to be
permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the
basis of the previous record of the appellant,
that there is no reason or justification to deny
him the permission which has been sought to
travel to the US for eight weeks. The appellant is
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 11 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport.
While it is true that an FIR has been lodged
against the appellant, that, in our view, should
not in itself prevent him from travelling to the
US, where he is a resident since 1985,
particularly when it has been drawn to the
attention of the High Court and this Court that
serious consequences would ensue in terms of
the invalidation of the Green Card if the
appellant were not permitted to travel. The
record indicates the large amount of litigation
between the family of the appellant and the
complainant. Notwithstanding or perhaps
because of this, the appellant has frequently
travelled between the US and India even after
the filing of the complaint and the FIR. We
accordingly are of the view that the application
for modification was incorrectly rejected by the
High Court and the appellant ought to have been
allowed to travel to the US for a period of eight
weeks.
26. We accordingly permit the appellant to do
so, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to
this Court before the date of travel that he will
return to India after the expiry of a period of
eight weeks and that he shall be available on all
dates of hearing before the court of criminal
jurisdiction, unless specifically exempted from
personal appearance. The undertaking shall be
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
filed in this Court before the appellant
undertakes travel. On the return of the appellant
after eight weeks and if it becomes necessary for
him to travel to the US, the appellant shall apply
to the court concerned for permission to travel
and any such application shall be considered on
its own merits by the competent court. The
appellant shall travel only upon the grant of
permission and subject to the terms imposed.
The passport of the appellant shall be handed
over to the appellant to facilitate his travel,
subject to the condition that he shall deposit it
with the investigating officer immediately on his
return."
In the case of Srikant Mohta (supra), this Court
held as follows:-
"9. The question is, whether, the passport
should be released with the permission to the
petitioner to travel abroad? Undeniably, the
petitioner has the freedom to pursue his
professional career in the film production but as
rightly said by Mr. Nayak, learned Special
Counsel for CBI, such right is subject to
restrictions as enumerated in Article 19(2) of
the Constitution of India. As is known, the
fundamental rights guaranteed under
the Constitution of India are non-absolute. This
is where the concept of reasonable restrictions in
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 13 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
Article 19 of the Constitution of India does
appear.
10. In the instant case, no doubt restrictions
have been imposed against the petitioner with
conditions but then at present, permission is
sought for by him for release of passport to
travel abroad for the reason stated. The
petitioner was no doubt granted bail on medical
ground. As earlier mentioned, it is not alleged at
any point of time that the petitioner after
release on bail ever misutilised the liberty. The
petitioner is alleged to have received the
consideration from BVC but under an agreement
towards satellite television broadcasting rights.
Considering the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, the Court is of the
view that since the petitioner is a known figure
in the entertainment industry based at Kolkata,
there is a remote chance of his absconding and
staying away from the limits of the court below
and having regard to the fact that the
investigation is concluded and there is no
material placed on record to show that he had
ever misutilised the liberty granted after release
on bail, the passport should be released in his
favour with a permission granted to him to leave
Kolkata for the stated purpose by imposing
necessary conditions."
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 14 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
In the case of Suresh Nanda (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:-
"12. In the present case, no steps have been
taken under Section 10 of the Act which
provides for variation, impounding and
revocation of the passports and travel
documents. Section 10-A of the Act which
provides for an order to suspend with immediate
effect any passport or travel document; such
other appropriate order which may have the
effect of rendering any passport or travel
document invalid, for a period not exceeding
four weeks, if the Central Government or any
designated officer on its satisfaction holds that it
is necessary in public interest to do without
prejudice to the generality of the provisions
contained in Section 10 by approaching the
Central Government or any designated officer.
Therefore, it appears that the passport of the
appellant cannot be impounded except by the
Passport Authority in accordance with law. The
retention of the passport by the respondent
(CBI) has not been done in conformity with the
provisions of law as there is no order of the
Passport Authorities under Section 10(3)(e) or
by the Central Government or any designated
officer under Section 10-A of the Act to impound
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 15 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
the passport by the respondent exercising the
powers vested under the Act.
xxx xxx xxx
17. In the present case, neither the Passport
Authority passed any order of impounding nor
was any opportunity of hearing given to the
appellant by the Passport Authority for
impounding the document. It was only the CBI
authority which has retained possession of the
passport (which in substance amounts to
impounding it) from October 2006. In our
opinion, this was clearly illegal. Under Section
10-A of the Act retention by the Central
Government can only be for four weeks.
Thereafter it can only be retained by an order of
the Passport Authority under Section 10(3).
xxx xxx xxx
19. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and direct the
respondent to hand over the passport to the
appellant within a week from today. However, it
shall be open to the respondent to approach the
Passport Authorities under Section 10 or the
authorities under Section 10-A of the Act for
impounding the passport of the appellant in
accordance with law."
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 16 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
9. On perusal of supplementary charge sheet filed
against the petitioner on 26.12.2022 which is annexed to the
revision petition as Annexure-3, it would be evident that the
petitioner was not arrested during course of investigation and
after taking cognizance of offences on such charge sheet, the
learned trial Court issued summons to the petitioner. The
petitioner on receipt of such summons appeared before the
learned trial Court and applied for bail and the observation in the
bail order that the petitioner had not avoided to the process of
law and hence there was less chance of absconding during trial,
is an important factor that has to be kept in mind while
adjudicating the issue whether his prayer for release of the
passport would be allowed or not. Even though after release of
the petitioner more than five months have already passed, the
learned Special Public Prosecutor has not pointed out anything
against the petitioner to have flouted the terms and conditions of
the bail order. It is not in dispute that the trial has not
commenced as yet. The grounds taken in the petition under
section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner and the supporting
documents indicate that since last three years, the petitioner had
entered into a contract with Maastricht University, Maastricht,
Netherlands and the contract was renewed every year and in the
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 17 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
month of December 2022, the petitioner had renewed his earlier
contract with Maastricht University to work as a visiting Professor
and to do some research work and in view of such contract, he is
required to travel at least three times in a year as per requisition
issued by the said University. The son and daughter-in-law of the
petitioner are staying in Sweden after their marriage and they
were blessed with a child on 27.10.2023 and the wife of the
petitioner is also staying with them. The petitioner had travelled
abroad for attending his official work in Maastricht University so
also attending his family in Sweden in between 2019 to May
2023 and came back to India. The petitioner is also having
permanent business establishment in India and he is the head of
the institution. During course of investigation, neither the
investigating agency demanded the passport from the petitioner
nor put any restriction on the petitioner to travel abroad and it is
not even the case of the investigating agency that the petitioner
did not cooperate during investigation. The petitioner has given
an undertaking in the petition itself that he would surrender the
passport before the Court immediately after his return from
abroad and also expressed his willingness to furnish the onward
as well as return journey tickets before the learned trial Court if
directed. The apprehension of the learned Special Public
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 18 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
Prosecutor that the petitioner would flee away and might not
return to India to face the trial, has no basis in view of the
previous conduct of the petitioner that not only during course of
investigation but also after submission of charge sheet against
him on 26.12.2022, he has travelled abroad for attending his
professional work and also his family staying at Sweden and
returned back to India. The reasons assigned by the learned trial
Court that the petitioner should not be allowed to move abroad
as there is allegation against him to have misappropriated a
huge amount of money received from the gullible investors by
entering into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons
is quite unjustified. The constitutional mandate read with the
scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amplifies that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law and the same is an
integral part and fundamental principle of the Indian criminal
justice system. The F.I.R. was lodged on 04.06.2014 and till
today, the trial has not commenced and nobody knows how
many years it would take for conclusion of the trial and
therefore, during this period, it is not expected that the accused
has to say a good bye to his professional assignments and his
obligations to his family. Another reason which has been
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 19 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
assigned in the rejection order is that one of the conditions of
the bail order was that the petitioner should not default in
personal attendance of the Court as and when required, is also
not a ground to reject the petition inasmuch as there is no
material on record that at any point of time after being released
on bail, the Court sought for the personal attendance of the
petitioner and that he defaulted in complying the same. During
trial, if the Court requires the personal attendance of the
petitioner, an order to that effect can be passed and the
petitioner is bound to comply the same.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned
order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Special C.J.M.
(C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.15/714 of 2023
which arises out of S.P.E. Case No.05 of 2014 is hereby set
aside. The passport bearing no.Z6385004 of the petitioner which
has been deposited before the learned trial Court in pursuance of
the order dated 16.10.2023 shall be released in favour of the
petitioner for a period of two months to facilitate his travel
abroad subject to submitting the itinerary/travel schedule and
details of the duration and place of stay in Maastricht University,
Netherlands and Sweden before the learned trial Court and the
Court may impose such other conditions as would be found
CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 20 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 08-Apr-2024 13:45:03
necessary and expedient. The petitioner shall strictly abide by
the terms and conditions.
10. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 8th April 2024/Sipun CRLREV No.672 of 2023 Page 21 of 21