Delhi High Court - Orders
Himanshu Verma vs Central Bureau Of India And Others on 16 May, 2025
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2880/2023
HIMANSHU VERMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manan Batra, Mr. Varun Tyagi
and Mr. Rohan Rana, Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP for CBI with
Mr. Mohd. Changez Khan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 16.05.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CRL.M.A. 12014/20252. The present application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeks the following prayers: -
"a. Pass appropriate orders thereby granting the Applicant permission to travel to Dubai U.A.E for his business meetings between 20.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 (both dates inclusive) after suspending the LOC for that particular travel itinerary and period. b. Direct the Investigation agency to not take any coercive steps against the Applicant and permit the applicant to travel abroad for their business trip.
c. Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant submits that by way of the present application the latter seeks permission to travel abroad after suspension of the LOC in the present FIR in order to travel to This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 Dubai from 20.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 (both days inclusive). It is submitted that the petitioner is a promoter, Director and shareholder of a company namely M/s Ayaan Finserve India Pvt. Ltd., which is an NBFC and is engaged in business of providing gold loans under the brand name 'AFI Easy Gold Loan'. It is submitted that the applicant/petitioner has received an invitation from a business organization namely, Kanz Alzahra Jewellery LLC which is based in Dubai and the petitioner is required to travel to Dubai in order to explore the expansion of his business venture.
4. It is submitted that on a previous occasion vide order dated 01.06.2023 learned Predecessor Bench of this Court had allowed the application to travel abroad from 02.06.2023 to 10.06.2023 after suspending the LOC, however, due to health issues he could not travel despite the fact that in pursuance of the said order LOC was suspended. It is further submitted that the applicant/petitioner has always joined the investigation and has never been arrested in the present FIR. It is further submitted that no adverse circumstances have come on record to show that the petitioner/applicant has tried to hamper with the investigation or stall the same.
5. Reply has been filed on behalf of the CBI. Learned SPP opposes the present application and submits that as per the case of the prosecution the investigation in the present case also relates to Dubai and therefore, the applicant/petitioner if allowed to travel to Dubai, may hamper the investigation. It is further submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Sanjay Bhandari has been absconding since the registration of the present FIR, and his extradition has been initiated by the ED from the United Kingdom. Further, in the present case Letter Rogatory have been sent to UAE and Switzerland and the same are pending. It is submitted that if the present This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 applicant is allowed to travel abroad there is a possibility that he may influence the investigation which is ongoing in UAE and Switzerland. Learned SPP further relies upon the judgment of the Coordinate bench of this Court in Jai Prakash Singhal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SSC OnLine Del 7069, It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment the accused was denied permission to travel to Dubai on account of the fact that the investigation in the said case was also pending. It is submitted that similar allegations are there with respect to the present applicant/petitioner regarding siphoning off the money through shell companies. It is further submitted that in the said judgment it was also observed that any meeting could have been conducted by the petitioner therein through video conferencing. It is submitted that the same can be done in the present case the applicant can join the meeting through video conferencing.
6. Learned Predecessor Bench of this Court in previous application being CRL.M.A. 14854/2023 granted suspension of LOC and granting permission to travel abroad vide order dated 01.06.2023 and observed as under:-
"CRL.M.A. 14854/20231. This is an application seeking permission to travel abroad between 02.06.2023 to 10.06.2023 for the purpose of business meetings and suspension of LOC for that particular period.
2. It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner has to visit Dubai as he is working in real-estate and has to meet potential clients.
3. Mr Varma, learned SPP has filed a reply and opposes the application.
He states that there are chances that the applicant may influence investigation going on in U.A.E and Switzerland.
4. In the present case, the FIR is of the year 2019 and four years have already elapsed for the respondents to conduct the investigation. It is not an application praying for cancellation of LOC but it is only an application seeking suspension of LOC during the period of visit. Right to travel is a fundamental right and has been so recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In „Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India', [(1978) 1 SCC 248] the Ho'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 "29. ...... If this be the correct test, as we apprehend it is, the right to go abroad cannot in all circumstances be regarded as included in freedom of speech and expression. Mr Justice Douglas said in Kent v. Dulles that "Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values." And what the learned Judge said in regard to freedom of movement in his country holds good in our country as well. Freedom of movement has been a part of our ancient tradition which always upheld the dignity of man and saw in him the embodiment of the Divine. The Vedic seers knew no limitations either in the locomotion of the human body or in the flight of the soul to higher planes of consciousness. Even in the post-Upanishadic period, followed by the Buddistic era and the early centuries after Christ, the people of this country went to foreign lands in pursuit of trade and business or in search of knowledge or with a view to shedding on others the light of knowledge imparted to them by their ancient sages and seers. India expanded outside her borders : her ships crossed the ocean and the fine superfluity of her wealth brimmed over to the east as well as to the west. Her cultural messengers and envoys spread her arts and epics in South-East Asia and her religions conquered China and Japan and other far Eastern countries and spread westward as far as Palestine and Alexandria. Even at the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, our people sailed across the seas to settle down in the African countries. Freedom of movement at home and abroad is a part of our heritage and, as already pointed out, it is a highly cherished right essential to the growth and development of the human personality and its importance cannot be over-emphasised. ...."
5. The petitioner has not been arrested in any other FIR. The petitioner has an immovable property in India and his son is studying in Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi in Class 4. In addition, the family of the petitioner are also not travelling with the petitioner during this period. For the said reasons and keeping in view the observations made by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi (supra), I am This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 inclined to allow the application. The LOC issued against the petitioner is suspended from 01.06.2023 to 11.06.2023 on the following terms and conditions: ............"
7. Reply on behalf of CBI in the present application is on the same lines as the previous reply which has been filed on the application seeking suspension of LOC and the only other ground that has been taken now is that extradition process has been initiated by the ED with respect to co-accused Sanjay Bhandari for his extradition from United Kingdom. Perusal of the reply shows that nothing has been placed on record to show that the applicant/petitioner has in any manner tried to hamper the investigation or stall the same at any point of time.
8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court was never challenged by the CBI. In the judgment relied upon by the learned SPP, the petitioner therein was a resident of UAE and in the circumstances of the said case, the permission was denied. Even the extradition process against the co-accused is pending in England.
9. In the opinion of this Court, no change in circumstances after passing of the earlier order dated 01.06.2023 have been shown in the reply to now decline the prayers seeking suspension of LOC.
10. In these circumstances, the application is allowed. The LOC is suspended and the petitioner/applicant is permitted to travel abroad from 20.05.2025 to 31.05.2025 (both days inclusive), subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond with a surety bond to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the IO concerned;
(ii) The petitioner shall disclose the travel itinerary, his place of stay in Dubai This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 and all his contact details to the IO and will not influence any witnesses, if any, in U.A.E;
(iii) The petitioner shall furnish to the IO/SHO concerned his cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times except travelling in flight;
11. The application is disposed of accordingly.
12. Copy of the order be sent to the Bureau of Immigration for necessary information and compliance.
13. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
14. Order be uploaded on the website of the Court forthwith. CRL.M.A. 13586/2025 (renewal of passport)
15. The present application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeks the following prayers: -
"a. Pass appropriate orders thereby granting the Applicant permission / no objection to renew the passport bearing No. N3324745 of Mr. Himanshu Verma, the Applicant herein, to be expired on 07.10.2025, in accordance with law;
b. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice."
16. Reply has been filed on behalf of CBI opposing the present application.
17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner submits that the passport of the latter bearing No. N3324745 is set to expire on 07.10.2025.
18. The applicant's application bearing No. CRL.M.A. 12014/2025 for permission to travel abroad and suspension of LOC already stands allowed.
19. In view of the averments made and in the interest of justice, the present This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36 application is allowed. The passport of the applicant/petitioner bearing No. N3324745 may be renewed by the competent authority in accordance with law.
20. Application is disposed of accordingly.
21. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 16, 2025/sn/pr Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/06/2025 at 19:00:36