Delhi High Court - Orders
Ratul Puri vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 25 August, 2022
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Asha Menon
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4051/2022
RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ankur Chawla, Mr. Talib
Khan, Mr. Aamir Khan, Mr. Shivam
Tandon, Mr. C.B. Bansal and Mr.
Hardikh Sharma, Advocates
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
ORDER
% 25.08.2022 CRL.M.A.16760/2022 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4051/20221. The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23rd August, 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC-Act), CBI-18, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
2. Ms. Rebecca John, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Special Judge while granting permission to the petitioner to CRL.M.C. 4051/2022 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:35:38 go abroad, in particular to New York and to Spain, also placed an onerous condition directing the petitioner to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.40 crores each, one in the form of Bank Guarantee or in the form of FDR of a Nationalised Bank and the other being one close family member.
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that this condition has never been placed before in any of the four cases that are pending against the petitioner and in which cases, at various times, permission to travel abroad has been granted to him. It is submitted that the condition of furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.40 crores is too onerous for the petitioner to meet and the same may be varied.
4. Issue notice.
5. Notice is accepted by Mr. Abhishek, learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Trial Court was prevailed upon to place such an onerous condition only because the petitioner has been repeatedly moving applications to go abroad and there is fear that he may not come back to face trial. It is further submitted that since the amount is only roughly one per cent of the alleged laundered amount there is no ground to vary the said term.
7. Heard submissions of both learned senior counsel.
8. It is apparent from the record and the various orders pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner being Annexures 5,8,9,14 and 17 over a period of time several applications have been moved by the petitioner for permission to go abroad for various purposes. The petitioner is CRL.M.C. 4051/2022 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:35:38 facing trial in cases being CT Case: 19/2019 and CC No. 1/2015, Case/RC No. 223/2020/A0002/CBI/AC-V/New Delhi, CBI Case No.18/2022 & ED Case No.75/2019 and permission to go abroad has been granted in all cases, but it seems on varied conditions. Various amounts have been directed as security to be furnished in the form of guarantee or FDR along with sureties, as conditions for going abroad. The petitioner has been returning to India and obtaining the release of the Bank Guarantees/FDR. This time he has sought permission to go abroad to admit his daughter for higher education at Columbia University, New York, and then visit Spain. The Learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides, considered it fit to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad, but placed the following conditions:-
(i) That the applicant shall furnish security in the form of bank guarantee/FDR (Nationalized Bank) in the sum of Rs.2 Crore (in respect of CBI Case as above);
(ii) That the applicant shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.40 Crore each who shall furnish the security amount in the form of bank guarantee or in the form of FDR of a Nationalized bank and one of the surety should be a close family member. This amount is roughly 1% of the allegedly laundered amount shown in the present case proceedings of the ED case.;
(iii) That he shall furnish his itinerary and address, where he would stay during his visit abroad;
(iv) That he shall provide his mobile phone number, which he would use during his stay abroad, and shall keep the same functional;
(v) That he shall not tamper with the evidence & influence the witnesses in any manner; and CRL.M.C. 4051/2022 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:35:38
(vi) That he shall adhere to the schedule and inform the Court within three days of his return to India.
9. It is to be noticed that thus far, the Trial Courts had directed the furnishing of security in the form of FDR/Bank Guarantee of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs or two sureties of Rs.1 crore each. The additional onerous condition ought to be justified by some event or fact. There is nothing to reveal why the Learned Trial Court felt the need to place this additional condition and what event had occurred that gave rise to doubt the return of the petitioner to face trial.
10. As has also been held by the Supreme Court in Mithun Chatterjee vs. State of Orissa [Order dated 12th November, 2021] in SLP (Crl). No.4705/2021], while onerous conditions may be incorporated in orders where situations called for them, it must not have the effect of nullifying the benefit the court has found fit to grant.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has gone abroad and returned on existing conditions several times. In the absence of any special fact calling for the addition of further stringent conditions, this Court is of the view that the condition (ii) in Para 6 could be modified to make it less onerous.
12. Thus, while all the other conditions remain the same as noted in Para No.8 above, the applicant is permitted to travel abroad, subject to his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs.5 Crores each one in the form of bank guarantee or FDR of a Nationalised bank and the other surety being a CRL.M.C. 4051/2022 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:35:38 close family member, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court/Duty MM.
13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
ASHA MENON, J AUGUST 25, 2022 ak CRL.M.C. 4051/2022 Page 5 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:25.08.2022 18:35:38