Sanjay Relan vs State Through Cbi
2005 Latest Caselaw 646 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. RC 10(S)/2001/SIU-1/SIC-1/New Delhi was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short `CBI') involving theft of 10 Indian Airlines tickets worth Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner allegedly conspired with the principal accused in the commission of the offence. The petitioner first obtained an anticipatory bail and has thereafter obtained regular bail. The bail order passed by this court dated 7.1.2005 directs release of the petitioner on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that the passport impounded by the CBI shall remain in the custody of the CBI and the petitioner should not leave the territory of NCR without the permission of the concerned court and the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. The petitioner seeks permission to go to China where he has a business. The prayer is opposed by the CBI. The trial court declined the permission to go abroad, so has the court of Sessions. Hence the present petition.

2. It is contended by the CBI that the presence of the petitioner in India has been obtained with great difficulty and there is every likelihood that he will run away from the country if he is allowed to leave India. Further it is submitted that the petitioner has obtained his passport by deceit and he cannot be allowed to travel on that very passport. The CBI apprehends that the petitioner will abscond because three co-accused in this case, namely, the wife of the petitioner (Naiya Relan), Prakash Nair and Rakesh Kumar are absconding. Seven cases against the petitioner are listed by the CBI.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted permission to go to China vide an order of this court dated 26.7.2004 and at that time all the objections now raised were available to the CBI. So far as the question of deceit in obtaining the passport is concerned, suffice it to say that no FIR under the Passport Act has been registered against the petitioner and no order withdrawing the passport has been passed. The passport still is a valid document.

4. The CBI has detained the passport by virtue of the order mentioned above. No order has been shown apart from the bail order which authorises the CBI to impound the petitioner's passport. So far as the other cases pending against the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted that out of the seven cases five have already been quashed on petitions filed by the petitioner. Of the two pending cases, one is the FIR in which present petition is filed. In the other matter, the petitioner has been released on bail and the same has also been challenged by the petitioner under proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. In the order of this court dated 26.7.2004, the apprehension of the petitioner absconding has been considered. After considering the nature of allegations as well as the fact that the value of the stolen tickets had already been deposited by the principal accused and further that the petitioner had participated in investigation, the court permitted the petitioner to go abroad for a period of two weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount as well as the bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the satisfaction of the trial court.

6. I do not think that there is any reason for passing a different order now. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to go to China for two weeks subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount and furnishing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall intimate the date of his departure at the time of furnishing the bond in the trial court. He shall intimate to the IO immediately on his arrival in the country. In case of his failure to intimate his arrival immediately on conclusion of two weeks from the date of his departure, it will be presumed that the petitioner has forfeited the surety bond and indemnity bond and action accordingly will follow.

7. The petition is disposed of accordingly.