State Through Center Bureau Of ... vs Chandraswamy
1991 Latest Caselaw 213 Del

JUDGMENT

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) By way of this application a prayer has been made by the C.B.L for modification of the order dated 17.12.1990 of Chawla, J, thereby confirming the interim bail order relating to Chandraswamy-respondent and it has been further requested that the conditions as imposed on co. accused K.N. Aggarwal may also be ordered to be imposed on the respondent.

(2) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this application are as under: ON25th of May, 1990FIR/Crim. No. 1 (SIG)(S)/90 was registered by Delhi Special Police Establishment for the offences under section 120-B.I.P.C. read with Sections 182/193/218/465/469/ 471 and 500 Indian Penal Code . and substantive offences under Sections 182/193/ 218/465/469/471/500 Indian Penal Code .-Six persons were named as accused including Chandraswamy-respondent and K.N. Aggarwal alias Mama Ji.

(3) On a petition being Crl. M. (M) 2683/90 moved by Chandraswamy, respondent an order was passed on 23.11.90 to the effect that the petitioner shall not be arrested in this case. The case was adjourned to 26th of November, 1990 and thereafter on 17th of November, 1990 the interim order of the petitioner was confirmed in view of the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail vide order dated 17.7.1990 of Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(4) I have heard Shri S. Lal, learned counsel for the C.B.I, and Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, Chandraswamy. Learned counsel for the C.B.I, has submitted that the Department has through out been of the view that the order dated 17.12.90 relating to Chandraswamy contained all the conditions which were imposed in the order of bail of K.N. Aggarwal and that one of the condition was that he would not leave India without the permission of the Court. He has also submitted that this fact was specifically brought to his notice by the investigating officer by sending him information requiring him to appear before the Investigating Officer on 27.2.91 vide order dated 26.2.91.

(5) These submissions have been. strongly controverter by learned counsel for the non-applicant and has even referred to the reply dated 27.2.91 sent by him to the Investigating Officer copy of which has been filed by C.B.I. According to him it was a factual misrepresentation on the part of the Investigating Officer. I have gone through the notice given by the Investigating Officer, its reply by counsel for non applicant and the two orders of bail relating to K.N. Aggarwal and non-applicant.

(6) Vide order dated 17.7.1990 relating to co-accused K.N. Aggarwal, he was granted anticipatory bail on the condition that he shall not leave India except with the permission of the Court and that he would report to the Investigating Officer on every Monday at 11 A.M. for a period of one month and and that he would also join the investigation as and when required. The fact, however, remains that referring to the said order of bail in respect of K.N. Aggarwal the interim bail of the respondent has been confirmed unconditionally. There could, thus, be no question of reading something in the said order which is not specifically recorded. I have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the said order of bail does not contain a condition that non-applicant would seek permission in the case before going abroad.

(7) The short question now for consideration is as to whether it is necessary to impose conditions on the respondent that he would not leave the country except with permission of this Court in the instant case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that in case R.C.I. (S/88/SIU) (IX) registered by the C.B.I, on 5.2.1988 a condition has already been imposed that Chandraswamy would not leave the country without permission of this Court. It is not disputed that it is in pursuance of the aforesaid condition that on an application moved by Chandraswamy he was permitted to go abroad for a period of six month subject to certain conditions including the conditions of his appearing before the I.O. on dates as suggested by him. Learned counsel for Chandraswamy has submitted that there was yet another case against Chandraswamy in which the anticipatory bail was confirmed vide order dated 17.12.1990. A request was made by counsel appearing for the Dte.of Enforcement for imposing a condition that Chandraswamy would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. This request was, however, declined on the ground that similar condition had already been imposed in a case against him. The said order was also passed by Chawla, J. on 17.12.1990 the date on which the interim bail of the petitioner was confirmed in the instant case. In these circumstances I do not find any justification for modification of the order dated 17th December to impose any such conditions that Chandraswamy should seek permission in this case also before going abroad.

(8) The grievance of the learned counsel for the C.B.I, has been that inspite of sending notices the respondent did not appear for interrogation on five occasions. He has referred to Annexure (V) giving the details of the dates. A perusal of the chart shows that on three dates intimation was sent to the Investigating Officer giving reasons of his being not available for interrogation. The respondent was summoned on 6th of March, 1991 also which date was cancelled by the I.O. The respondent was also summoned for 27th of February, 1991, on which date he could not appear before the I.O. being busy in another case investigated by the C.B.I. Thus, there is only one date, i.e 21st January 1991 for which there was no reply.

(9) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent would be available for interrogation as and when required and, in fact there has never been any intentional default on his part. The apprehension of learned counsel for the C.B.I.that the respondent would not return to India appears to be without any foundation since the order dated 26th February, 1991 of this Court giving permission to the respondent to go abroad for six month itself has made it a condition that he would appear before Shri K.P. Singh, Dy, S.P. of C.B.I., I.O. of the said case for three days with effect from 26th March 1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the I.O. of this case' would like to interrogate the respondent on 1st April, 1991 and thereafter on the dates for which he would give notice Counsel for the respondent agreed that the respondent would appear before B.N. Misra Deputy S.P., Investigating Officer on 1st April, 1991 and that the time of such appearance would be communicated by the I.O.