Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 November, 2022
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39754 of 2019 Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Shukla Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Verma,Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Mohd. Rashid Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ankit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), CBI Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 21 of 2013 and permit the applicant to travel to BERLIN, GERMANY at the address above mentioned with his wife, to meet his daughter and Son-in-law.
It is further, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court to permit the applicant to travel at Berlin, Germany to visit her daughter, Neha Shukla during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
The brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged against the applicant and other accused persons on 18.08.2011, under Sections 120-B read with 420, 409, 477 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) r/w (1) (d) and Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other Substantive Offences on the direction of the High Court vide order dated 30.05.2011 while hearing Writ Petition No. 25920 of 2011 (M/s. Society for Science and Environment Awareness Research Communication and Heritage vs. State of U.P. and others) directing the C.B.I. to conduct preliminary enquiry on award of contract, utilization of funds and role of MDMA relating to Mid Day Meal Scheme in District Mainpuri, U.P. and submit a report. A report was submitted by the C.B.I. on 02.08.2011 after which by an order of the said date the Court directed the C.B.I. to take over the investigation of Case Crime No. 900 of 2011, under Sections 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and 3/7 EC Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri. The Court ordered that the C.B.I. should proceed against all the 09 persons / officials whose involvement has surfaced prima facie during preliminary enquiry as mentioned in its report. In pursuance of the same, a first information report was lodged by the C.B.I. as FIR No. RC1202011A0004 of 2011, P.S. CBI, ACB Ghazaibad, District Ghazaibad on 18.08.2011 against (1) Raghuvir Singh, the then Basik Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri, (2) K.D.N. Ram, the then Basik Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri, (3) Vishnu Dayal, the then Sr. Clerk, O/o Basik Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri, (4) Prashant Mishra, District Co-ordinator, Mid Day Meal, Mainpuri and (5) Vivek Sudharshan, Secretary, NGO M/s. SEARCH. Five public servants whose implication was also prima facie found were also made to join the array of accused in the same who are Dinesh Chandra Shukla, the then District Magistrate, Mainpuri, Ms. Ministhi S, the then District Magistrate, Mainpuri, Sachitanand Dubey, the then District Magistrate, Mainpuri, H.S. Chaturvedi, the then Chief Development Officer, Mainpuri and J.B. Singh, the then Chief Development Officer, Mainpuri. The applicant surrendered on 20.03.2014 in the Court of the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), CBI, Ghaziabad in pursuance of summons. He was granted bail vide order dated 06.05.2014 by this Court. Since there was some correction in the order subsequently an order was passed by the trial court in compliance of which the applicant was released on 16.05.2014. On coming to know of certain facts in the order, the trial court directed that the applicant be taken into custody vide order dated 05.05.2015. Subsequently the applicant approached this Court and was granted bail vide order dated 13.05.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17023 of 2015 (Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs. C.B.I.).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was in possession of a passport which expired on 16.10.2016 after which he sought permission of the trial court for its renewal. The trial court vide its order daed 28.02.2017 permitted the renewal of the passport of the applicant but with a rider that if the applicant gets the same renewed he shall neither misuse it nor use it without the permission of the Court, the copy of the order has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. Learned counsel while placing paragraph 10 & 11 of the affidavit has argued that the applicant has a daughter who is married and settled in Berlin, Germany and he intends to travel with his wife to meet his daughter and son-in-law residing there. It is argued that the applicant moved an application before the trial court seeking permission to travel abroad to meet his daughter and son-in-law which is numbered as Application No. 3811 Kha to the trial court records but the same has been rejected vide order dated 08.04.2019 by returning a finding that there is no reason satisfying any urgency for the visit and even it is not mentioned as to where the daughter of the applicant resides in Europe. It is argued that then the applicant filed another application being Application No. 3829 Kha to the record mentioning the address of his daughter. The said application has been rejected vide order dated 06.05.2019 by the trial court on the ground that there is no urgency for the visit, the copy of the said order which is impugned herein has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has argued that the applicant is a retired officer from the Indian Administrative Services having his bank account and property in India. He is a pensioner after retiring in December 2011 after serving more than 35 years in Government job and owns immovable property in Lucknow. Paragraph 18, 22 and 23 of the affidavit has been placed. It is argued that the applicant be permitted to visit abroad to meet his daughter and son-in-law. The applicant has a legitimate right to travel to meet his family members. He intends to undertake his journey and programme for two months. It is argued that the order impugned be set-aside and permission be granted to the applicant to travel abroad. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgements of the Apex Court and has argued that the Apex Court has in identical circumstances permitted travelling of the applicants therein abroad. The said judgements are as follows:-
1. Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of Inda (UOI) and others: Civil Appeal No. 3802 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1655 of 2019) decided on 09.04.2019.
2. Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi: AIR 1967 SC 1836.
Learned counsel has further while placing his argument has relied upon a judgement in the case of Balbir Singh Dhol vs. State of Punjab: CRM-M No. 22368 of 2022 (O&M) decided on 26.05.2022 of Punjab & Haryana High Court and has argued that even therein the High Court has permitted the applicant therein to travel abroad to visit his daughter who was a permanent resident of England (London).
It is argued that as such the applicant be permitted to travel to Berlin, Germany for two months to visit his daughter.
Per contra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposed the prayer for travel by the applicant to abroad. It is argued that the applicant is the main accused in the present matter. The trial is under progress and as per the order impugned 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined, a total of 2231 witnesses have to be examined in the trial. It is argued that there is no reason shown by the applicant as to why his daughter cannot come and visit him in India. It is argued that the presence of the applicant is needed in trial during the examination of the witnesses failing which the applicant can take an objection of the statements being recorded in his absence and then the same may delay the trial. It is argued that the permitting the applicant to travel abroad for two months would adversely effect the trial. It is argued that as such the present application be dismissed.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is on bail in the present case. He is the main accused in the matter. His presence in the trial is needed on each and every date fixed for recording of evidence. In the event he does not appear, the trial may get hampered. There is no cogent reason given as to why his daughter and her husband cannot visit and meet the applicant and his wife in this country. In so far as the judgement in the case of Satish Chandra Verma (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court has stated that there is a right to travel being an important basic right of an individual and it extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship. In the present case no such specific reason has been given. Further the case of Satwant Singh Sawhney (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as the same relates to the question of refusal to give passport. In the present case the permission for renewal of passport was granted to the applicant by the trial court but with a restriction to seek permission for travelling and not to misuse it. The trial court has by a detailed order which is impugned herein rejected the application for permission to travel abroad on cogent grounds. In so far as the case of Balbir Singh Dhol (supra) is concerned, permission was granted for travelling abroad as the daughter of the said applicant was facing a family dispute in England (London) and the concern therein that the applicant as being a father and close to his daughter was needed in this hour. The permission was thus granted. The said case thus stand at a different footing and are distinguishable on facts.
The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The reasons returned in the same for refusing to grant permission to travel abroad are just and proper reasons. Looking to the fact that the trial has to proceed expeditiously, this Court does not find any cogent reason to entertain the present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the same is thus dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)