Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar Garg vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 26 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
Bench: Sunil Gaur
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 647/2015
Date of Order: 26th February, 2015
MANOJ KUMAR GARG ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Sharma and Mr. Puneet
Relan , Advocates
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advocate for
respondent-CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% (ORAL)
Petitioner is an accused in RC No. BD1/2011/E
0002/CBI/BS&FC, titled as "CBI Vs. M/s Texcomash International (P) Ltd.", whose application for traveling abroad has been rejected by trial court vide impugned order of 13 th February, 2015 on the apprehension that petitioner may not return to India if petitioner is permitted to visit Dubai (UAE).
To assail the impugned order, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is neither the Director nor a Promoter of accused company i.e. M/s Texcomash International Limited and petitioner is not even named in the FIR. It was also submitted that petitioner has already joined the investigation of this case and the chargesheet in this case has been filed and so there is no question of petitioner tampering with the evidence. It was pointed out that CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 1 there are 120 witnesses and the trial of this case is likely to take time and the livelihood of the family of petitioner would be adversely affected if petitioner is not able to travel to Dubai for his business activities as well as to take care of his family. It was pointed out that petitioner was granted Permanent Resident Status by Government of UAE in the year 2007 and his family has been granted Dependent Resident Permit and if petitioner is not permitted to go to Dubai (UAE) then it will result in automatic cancellation of VISA of petitioner and of his family members, which is expiring on 24th March, 2015. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner had come to India on 31st August, 2014 and 180 days will expire by the end of February, 2015 and if petitioner does not visit UAE before the expiry of 180 days as per VISA Rules of UAE, then petitioner would lose his residency status, medical insurance and other credit facilities which petitioner and his family are having in Dubai.
It was next submitted on behalf of petitioner that conditional bail has been granted to petitioner subject to deposit of `6 Crores by 12th June, 2015 and out of the said amount petitioner has been able to deposit `1 Crores only and to arrange rest of `5 Crores, petitioner needs to urgently go to Dubai so that before 12 th May, 2015, `5 Crores is deposited by petitioner with the trial court. It was pointed out that petitioner has the following properties in Dubai:-
i) 1301, 1302, Vision Tower, Business Bay, Dubai, UAE.
ii) Villa No. 25, Meadows-I, Dubai, UAE.
iii) Villa No. 25, Meadows-II, Dubai, UAE.
CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 2
iv) M-19, Palam Jumera, Dubai, UAE.
v) Flat No. 7704, Burj Khalifa, Dubai, UAE.
It was pointed out that parents of petitioner possess the following properties:-
a) Plot No. 1, 2,3 Revenue Estate, Kamrudding Nagar Extension, New Delhi.
b) H.No. G-26, 1st Floor, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
c) Plot No. 32, Indra Park Extension, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.
Petitioner claims to be the Director of M/s Glints Global General Trading LLC having its registered office at Office No. 102, Century 21st opposite Al Kabayal Discount Centre, Deira Dubai UAE, Telephone No. +97142397467. It was submitted on his behalf that he was residing at Flat No. 203, Golden Sand-4, Bur Dubai, Dubai, UAE. Telephone No. + 97143887876.
On instructions, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner needs to re-arrange his finances to deposit about `5 Crores and if petitioner is not permitted to go to Dubai then petitioner would not be able to comply with the directions issued vide order of 7th January, 2015 and his business and family life would be shattered.
Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that in CC No. 18/13, CBI Vs. Raj Kumar Verma, RC No.2(E)/06, petitioner has CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 3 already been permitted to travel to Dubai vide order of 10th February, 2015 (Annexure-P10) and in RC No. 7E 2003/EOW-I, titled as „CBI Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Ors', he has been also permitted to go to Dubai vide order of 9th February, 2015 (Annexure-P11) and so on parity basis, petitioner deserves to be granted permission to travel abroad on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI supports the impugned order and submits that there is a genuine apprehension that petitioner will not return back to this country to face the trial in this case as he is required to deposit `6 Crores which, of course, is without prejudice to rights of either side. Upon directions, respondent-CBI has verified property details so furnished by petitioner on affidavit and verification report has been now received, wherein it has been disclosed that there is no Sale Deed in respect of two properties i.e. 1) Plot No. 1, 2, 3 Revenue Estate, Kamrudding Nagar Extension, New Delhi and 2) H. No. G- 26, 1st Floor, Community Centre, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 and so petitioner ought not to be given permission to travel abroad.
Regarding petitioner‟s passport, it was submitted by learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the same has not yet been impounded as yet.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, the orders (Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-11), status report and the material on record, I find that petitioner is entitled to go to Dubai for a period of four weeks on parity basis as petitioner has been already permitted to go to Dubai vide orders (Annexures P-10 & P-11). So CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 4 far as the apprehension of respondent-CBI regarding petitioner not returning back to this country is concerned, it can be taken care of by directing petitioner to place on record his undertaking as well as of his parents that the three properties as referred in the status report would stand confiscated to State in the event of petitioner not returning back to India in time. Moreover, livelihood and personal life of petitioner cannot be put at stake on an apprehension of his absconding because there is an Extradition Treaty of 25th October, 1999 (ratified on 29th May, 2000) between India and Dubai (UAE).
In the aforesaid view of this matter, this petition is allowed and petitioner is permitted to leave this country for Dubai only for a period of 4 weeks from the date of his departure from Delhi upon his furnishing a fixed deposit receipt in the sum of `25 lakhs to the trial court alongwith his undertaking by way of an affidavit to the effect that petitioner shall arrange his finances in order to deposit a sum of `5 Crores with the trial court on or before 12th June, 2015 and the absence of petitioner would not, in any way, hamper the proceedings of this case. Petitioner shall also furnish his itinerary alongwith details of his family members and shall also give the details of his land line phone number, mobile number, e-mail ID and FAX Number in Dubai (UAE) with an undertaking that he would appear before the trial court as and when he is informed by the Investigating Officer.
The passport of petitioner be released to him on his furnishing Undertaking in the aforesaid terms and upon his parents also furnishing similar Undertaking alongwith title documents of CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 5 the three properties in Delhi with a specific rider that they will have no objection if these three properties are confiscated by the State if petitioner fails to comply with this order. Let the undertaking be furnished by way of affidavits.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master to petitioner‟s counsel.
SUNIL GAUR, J
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
rs
CRL.M.C. 647/2015 Page 6