Delhi High Court - Orders
Narender @ Sonu Dahiya vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 April, 2023
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 334/2023
NARENDER @ SONU DAHIYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State
with Insp. Subhash Chandra, Cyber
Cell/Crime Branch.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 17.04.2023
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C‟) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in bail application no. 1360/2022 and for the release of the passport of the petitioner in connection with FIR bearing No. 133/2017, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi for a period of two months.
2. Briefly stated, the petitoner has been charged for the offences punishable for cheating several persons by circulating crypto currency and promoting prize chits and money circulation as member of chit and scheme and thus charged under Sections 420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) as well as Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
3. It is noted that the petitioner herein was granted regular bail vide order dated 15.06.2018. After that, petitioner had sought modification of the bail Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2023 16:56:28 order dated 15.06.2018 before this Court which was dimissed by this Court on 01.04.2022. He had, thereafter, sought release of his passport for three weeks before learned CMM, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in FIR bearing No. 133/2017 which was allowed to be released vide order dated 29.04.2002 for a period of 15 days i.e. from 03.05.2022 to 18.05.2022. The petitioner had complied with the order dated 29.04.2022 and had submitted the passport with the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, petitioner had again sought release of his passport which was permitted vide order dated 30.08.2022. On 16.11.2022, the petitioner had filed an application before learned Trial Court for modification of bail order and requested the court to permanently release the passport, however, the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.11.2022 which reads as under:
"...This application seeks modification of order dated 15.06.2018 whereby the applicant/accused Narender @ Sonu Dahiya had been granted bail subject to condition that he will deposit his passport in the court and shall seek permission prior for visiting abroad. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State accompanied by the IO has submitted that one such application for modification of bail order was already dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court previously. Thereafter, the record shows the same application had also been filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court had also dismissed the same on 01.04.2022. These facts have been suppressed by the applicant in the present application. The applicant has not come to court with clean hands and he is guilty of suppressing the material facts, therefore he is not entided to any relief. The application is dismissed.."
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner has never violated any condition after the passport was released and the petitioner never delayed on re-submitting the passport to learned Trial Court. It is also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2023 16:56:28 stated that Investigating Officer („IO‟) has failed to file supplementary charge-sheet and trial has not begun. It is vehemently stated that the petitioner frequently travels abroad for work and therefore, he has to seek release of passport on every occasion. Thus, petitioner be permitted to travel abroad. It is stated that impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality as learned Trial Court did not consider that the petitioner has never violated any condition imposed on him at the time of grant of bail and therefore, order dated 18.11.2022 be set aside and passport be released for two months.
5. Per Contra, Learned APP for the State opposes the present application and states that the accused has previously violated the directions of the courts and has been guilty of suppressing material facts before the learned Trial Courts. It is also stated that the petitioner has defaulted in depositing his passport several times. Thus, the application shall be dismissed.
6. I have heard arguments on belhalf of both the parties and have perused material on record.
7. It is to be noted that learned counsel for the petitioner during oral submissions did not dispute that the petitioner had not mentioned these facts in this petition or the grounds for setting aside the impguned order in question.
8. This Court is of the opinion that vide order dated 18.11.2022, the learned Trial Court had observed that while filing an application seeking modification of order dated 15.06.2018 vide which the petitioner was granted bail subject to certain conditions that he will deposit his passport in the court and shall seek prior permission for going abroad, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that similar application was already dismissed by learned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2023 16:56:28 Sessions Court in the past and he had also suppressed the fact before the learned Trial Court that this Court had also dismissed a similar application on 01.04.2022. This Court‟s attention was also drawn to another order dated 17.12.2022, vide which he had sought extension of time qua release of his passport from 17.12.2022 to 15.01.2023 for visiting Dubai and Thailand but, his passport was already with him in terms of order dated 27.10.2022. The learned Trial Judge has noted that the passport of applicant was last year released vide order dated 27.10.2022 to travel to Dubai and Thailand for the period stated therein. However, the Court was informed that the applicant had never travelled to the said destinations and did not even bother to deposit the passport despite having not travelled to either of the destinations. The learned Trial Court had, therefore, obsereved that the applicant had still retained the passport with him which was released to him on the pretext of attending urgent work abroad. However, the reason was not bona fide and therefore, he did not travel to any destination, hence his application for release of passport and travelling abroad was dismissed.
9. This Court having considered the conduct of the applicant herein which is mentioned in detail in orders dated 18.11.2022 and 17.12.2022 that the present applicant had not only suppressed material facts before the learned Trial Courts for modification of his condition of bail i.e. application had been dimissed by this Court as well as a previous Sessions Court, he had also without any bona fide intention had got his passport released but did not travel to any of the destinations and further despite not travelling to any destinations, he had not surrendered the passport which was one of the conditions of bail granted to him.
10. It is noted that the conduct of the applicant reflected in 18.11.2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2023 16:56:28 was that he did not move any application with clean hands and was guilty of suppressing material facts and order dated 17.12.2022 shows that he had got his passport released and did not surrender it which was one of the conditions of bail. The fact that petitioner did not travel to the destinations for which he had got the passport released is not disputed but no reason was mentioned even in this petition or before any court as to why he had conducted himself in the said manner.
11. Considering the same and the conduct of the applicant mentioned in both the orders, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugmed order dated 18.11.2022. Resultantly, the present application stands dismissed.
12. However, it is clarified that finding in this petiton, will not come in the way of accused moving any fresh application for going abroad or release of his passport on bona fide grounds and upon satisfaction of the same being bona fide, the learned Trial Court may proceed to decide such applications as per law. The applicant is cautioned to be careful in future in moving applications suppressing material facts.
13. The learned Trial Courts will consider his application only in case he files the air tickets purchased by him & itinerary on record and upon recording the satisfaction reflected from documents filed by him in future.
14. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.
15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 17, 2023/zp Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:17.04.2023 16:56:28