Delhi High Court - Orders
Cbi vs Rajesh Mishra on 13 September, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 4542/2022, CRL.M.A. 18428/2022
CBI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anupam S. Sharma, SPP with
Mr.Prakarsh Airan, Ms.Harpreet
Kalsi, Mr.Ripudaman Sharma,
Mr.Nishant Choudhary and
Mr.Abhishek Batra, Advocates with
SI Devender Gautam, CBI.
versus
RAJESH MISHRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms.Priyal
Garg, Mr.Udit Bakshi and Mr.Ajay
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
% 13.09.2022 Petition has been received from the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh as the Hon'ble Judge is not holding Court today.
CRL.M.A. 18429/2022Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 4542/2022, CRL.M.A. 18428/2022
1. Petition has been preferred on behalf of CBI under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside orders dated 22.08.2022 and 03.09.2022 passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi, whereby permission was granted to the respondent to visit USA from 15.09.2022 to 15.03.2023.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:15.09.2022 11:36:562. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondent along with respondent in-person appear on advance notice and accept notice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/CBI submits that respondent is one of the co-accused in FIR/RC No.RC 06A/1999/CBI/SPE/SILCHAR registered by CBI under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471/477(A) I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, wherein co-accused Dr. Mithilesh Prasad Singh, then Vice Chancellor, Central Agricultural University, Imphal stands convicted vide judgment dated 30.03.2011. It is urged that respondent failed to join the investigation and was absconding in the aforesaid case and has been released on bail after being detained on 09.06.2022 pursuant to look out circular.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Trial Court has permitted the respondent to travel abroad for 6 months and has also directed for the release of the passport and OCI Card, which was seized by CBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent may flee, in case, he is permitted to leave the country during the pendency of the trial.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent had been visiting India during the relevant period and was not even aware about the pendency of the present proceedings. Further, respondent had been granted VISA as well as OCI Card after verification and due consideration.
5. Respondent may file reply, if any, within two weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rejoinder, if any, be filed thereafter within two weeks.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the operation of order dated 22.08.2022 and 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court is stayed till the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:15.09.2022 11:36:56 next date of hearing.
Trial Court Record be summoned in digital format. List on 17.10.2022.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022/R Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:15.09.2022 11:36:56