Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition wherein the Petitioner sought permission to travel abroad amid an ongoing investigation into the Sahara Group. The petition was filed despite a Look Out Circular (hereinafter referred to as “LOC”) issued by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (hereinafter referred to as “SFIO”). The Court observed that lack of merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner sought permission to travel to New York and Dubai from May 25 to June 17, 2024, to assist his children with their education. Due to delays in processing, he rescheduled his travel from August 16 to September 5, 2024. He needs to be in New York for his son’s admission to the New York Film Academy and to visit his daughter in Dubai. The petitioner argues that the travel restrictions infringe upon his fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Earlier, permission to travel abroad was denied by the Special Judge, Dwarka Court on February 12, 2024, and the current application lacks merit. Previous petitions for similar travel relief have also been rejected. The petitioner, a director with group companies, has substantial financial ties with Sahara and its affiliated entities. Despite these companies not being under direct investigation their financial connections with the principal company are being scrutinized by the SFIO. The petitioner is also linked to three overseas entities involved with Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited.
Contention of Petitioner:
The counsel of the petitioner contended that the eighth companies where the petitioner is a director are linked to the Sahara Group, and no investigations are being conducted against these companies. The allegations remain speculative and unsubstantiated. It is further submitted by the counsel that the petitioner had been examined twice and the claim of the respondent that the petitioner has not been cooperative is completely defeated and there is no question of the petitioner being non-cooperative when he has not been asked to join the investigation for the last two years.
It is also contended by the counsel that the petitioner’s family are permanently residing in India and his business interests are also in India. The counsel refers to the Supreme Court judgement P. Chidambaram v. CBI [(2020) 4 SCC (Crl) 528], It has been observed that the ‘flight risk’ of economic offenders should be considered as a national issue, rather than using the departure of other offenders as a strict basis for denying bail to those approaching the courts. Further, the counsel also refers to Brij Bhushan Kathuria vs. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2587), which cited Sumer Singh Salkan vs. Asst. Director (W.P.(Crl.) 1315/2005, decided on 11.08.2010). The court observed that an LOC cannot be issued unless an FIR or criminal case is pending, and temporarily suspended the LOC to allow the petitioner to travel abroad.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent contended that the Special Judge’s order dated February 12, 2024, appropriately balanced individual rights with national interests. The reasons for the petitioner’s request were not deemed urgent. The reasons for the petitioner’s request were not deemed urgent. It is further submitted that the petitioner, a close associate of late Subrata Sahara Roy has been linked with the Sahara Group since 1993 and served as Executive Director at Sahara Financial Corporation Corporation Limited. According to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the petitioner is a director in nine companies, eight of which are connected to the Sahara Group, involving fund diversion during the alleged fraud period.
The counsel further contended that the petitioner has been asked to provide documents on multiple occasions and he has failed to do thereby hampering the progress of the investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner is a high flight risk and it is highly probable that he may not return to India once the LOC is suspended and the counsel added that the petitioner has sufficient resources to move and survive in any foreign country.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the Special Judge at Dwarka Court had previously denied a similar travel request due to concerns over the petitioner’s non-cooperation and its potential impact on the investigation. The court remarks why Dogra’s children could not travel to India to meet him, stating “Insofar as meeting the son and daughter are concerned, there is no restriction on the children to travel to India, to meet the parents. For this purpose, there is no need for the petitioner, to travel to Dubai”.
The court also held that the Special Judge had rightly observed that the petitioner had given no cogent reason for travelling abroad.
The decision Of the Court:
The court dismissed the application and ruled that “in light of the ongoing investigation and the crucial stage it is at the application for interim stay on LOC and permission to travel abroad is dismissed”.
Title: Vijay Singh Dogra Vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr Murari Tiwari, Ms Ankita Tiwari, Mr Rahul Kumar, Mr Abhishek Tiwari, Ms Mrinal Bharti, Mr Hemant Shah, Mr Shivam Khora, Mr Anuj Gupta, Mr Hemant Shah, Mr Vishal Mann
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr. Pankaj Mohan, Sr. Prosecutor, Mr. Shriram Tiwary, Govt. Pleader, Mr Amit Gupta, Mr R.V. Prabhat, Mr Vinay Yadav, Mr Saruabh Triapthi, Mr Shubham Sharma, Mr Vikramaditya Singh, Mr Abhay Singh, Mr Arjun Aggarwal, Mr Akshay Kumar Singh, Ms Parul Chutani, Mr Lakshay Singh & Mr A.S. Muhania, Advocates with Mr Avanish Saini, Asstt. Director/IO.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
