Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohd Salim Chand Mansuri vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 July, 2024
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~54
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1864/2023
MOHD SALIM CHAND MANSURI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC for the
State with Mr. Abhishrut Singh,
Advocate for R-1
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms.
Mishika Pandita, Advocate for CBI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 29.07.2024 CRL.M.A. 22068/2024(exemption)
1. For the reasons stated therein, the Application is allowed.
2. The Application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 22067/2024(under Section 482 Cr.P.C)
3. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for modification of the Order dated 10.07.2024, whereby the LOC agains the petitioner, was quashed.
4. It is submitted that though vide Order dated 10.07.2024, the LOC against the petitioner has been quashed but a condition had been imposed that he shall take the permission from the learned Trial Court before leaving the country. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the 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 01/08/2024 at 20:57:19 imposition of such a condition defeats the very purpose of quashing of the LOC.
5. It is further submitted that after the registration of the FIR by the CBI, the petitioner has never been arrested. Further, even though the Charge Sheet has already been filed before Lucknow Court, the cognizance is yet to be taken and because of these circumstances, no application for bail has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the bail and cancellation of LOC, operate in two different spheres and such a condition would have an impact of nullifying the cancellation of LOC. Further, this same condition had been imposed while quashing the LOC of the other co- accused; however, the same has been deleted.
6. It is therefore prayed that the condition to take permission of the Trial Court to travel abroad, may be deleted from the Order dated 10.07.2024.
7. Learned Prosecutor for the CBI has vehemently argued that this condition is well considered and in case the petitioner goes abroad, there would be no control of this Court to ensure his presence and his absence would delay the trial. The Prosecutor has placed reliance on Disha A. Ravi V/s State in Crl.M.C. 5914/2023 decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 26.09.2023, in support thereof. The learned counsel has further stated that the Charge Sheet has already been filed, though cognizance has not been taken and there is no occasion for the petitioner, to seek bail, at this stage.
8. Submissions heard.
9. Pertinently, the LOC that had been issued against the petitioner, has been cancelled vide Order dated 10.07.2024, though a condition had been put that the petitioner would take prior permission from the Court, whenever 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 01/08/2024 at 20:57:19 he is travelling abroad.
10. The record shows that the petitioner in his Application for cancellation of LOC, had specifically mentioned that he was working as Purchase Manager in Stockholm BCDG CONT LLC, Dubai, UAE and it was in connection with his job and his business, that he used to go to Dubai.
11. It is further asserted that his family which comprises of his wife, two sons and an old an ailing mother are permanent resident of Mumbai. He is the sole bread earner of the family and his family would starve to death if he is not permitted to travel to Dubai to take up a job, since he has no source of employment in Mumbai. On the aforesaid submissions, he had sought quashing of the LOC which prevented him from travelling to Dubai in relation to his work.
12. The LOC has been quashed vide Order dated 10.07.2024. Now the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for deletion of the condition of taking prior permission from the Court before travelling abroad on the ground that though the Chargesheet has been filed before the Court in Lucknow, no cognizance has been taken and consequently, no bail application has been moved. This condition of seeking prior permission is limiting him in his travel to Dubai for the purpose of taking up a job. It is further submitted that similar condition which was imposed while quashing the LOC of two of the co-accused namely Anis Mohd. Iqbal Mansoor and Shahan Mirza has already been modified/deleted. On the same premise and parity the petitioner has sought deletion of this condition.
13. From the submissions made in the Application and the documents relied upon by the petitioner, an impression was created that it is the LOC, which was preventing him from taking up a job in Dubai for which he had 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 01/08/2024 at 20:57:19 an offer. The challenged condition was, therefore, imposed to ensure that the investigations and the trial takes place and is not thwarted on account of non-presence of the petitioner.
14. However, today during the course of arguments, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not gone to Dubai and he is presently located in India. It is vehemently contended that the condition of seeking prior permission is not only onerous, but also is self-defeating. The petitioner apparently is based in Mumbai, while the case has been registered in Lucknow.
15. Considering the totality of circumstances and keeping in mind that though there is no bail application pending as the cognizance on the Chargesheet is yet to be taken by the learned Court, in Lucknow, while the petitioner is based in Mumbai, the condition under challenge, in para 16 of the Order dated 10.07.2024, is modified, to read as "The matter is already under trial before the learned Trial Court. The petitioners shall keep the Trial Court informed about his place of residence and his updated contact number and in the event of travelling abroad, he may inform the concerned Trial Court, by way of an Application annexed with his itinerary and his intended placed of residence in abroad. The Look Out Notice is, therefore, directed to be closed.".
16. Thus, the condition is accordingly modified in the Order dated 10.07.2024.
17. The Application is accordingly disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JULY 29, 2024/PT/RS 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 01/08/2024 at 20:57:19