Delhi High Court
Rita Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 December, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009
Date of Decision : 11.12.2009
RITA SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Pavan
Narang, Advocate.
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur,
Advocate along with
Inspector Satpal.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the CBI has handed over status report. I
have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel for the CBI.
2. The learned Senior Counsel has confined his prayer for the
present only to prayer „B‟ of the petition by virtue of which
permission has been sought by the petitioner Rita Singh to
travel abroad from 15.12.2009 to 20.12.2009 along with her
daughter Natasha Singh so as to discuss the business matters
with her prospective investors and bankers.
3. It has been contended by the learned Senior counsel that while
enlarging the petitioner on bail, the learned Special Judge vide
order dated 08.11.2004 had imposed a condition that Rita Singh
or Natasha Singh will always be in India and both of them will
not travel out of country together without specific permission of
the Court. It has been contended that as and when in the past
such travel has been undertaken, requisite permission has been
obtained from the learned Special Judge. It was also contended
that last year while undertaking such a travel on 12.8.2008, the
learned counsel for the petitioner at that point of time had made
a statement that the accused Rita Singh will not apply in future
to travel along with her daughter. It has been urged that in the
absence of such a statement, the permission would not have
been granted to travel abroad. It is urged that this statement
may not be taken against the petitioner to deny the
consideration of her application in this regard.
4. The learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer of the
petitioner. It has been contended that the conditions which
have been imposed vide order dated 8.11.2004 may not be
modified so as to enable the present petitioner to undertake the
travel with her daughter because the petitioner along with other
family members are involved in number of cases and therefore,
the presence of one of them ought to be here in the country so
as to put some moral pressure on the accused going abroad, to
return back to the country.
5. I have considered the respective submissions. I feel as the
permission had been granted to the petitioner to undertake the
travel along with her daughter last year, there should be no
impediment in permitting her to undertake a short travel to
Hongkong as prayed by her from 15th to 20th December, 2009
subject to the condition that her husband Sh.J.K.Singh will not
apply for undertaking to travel outside the country during this
period. This shall be further subject to the condition which have
been imposed vide order dated 12.8.2008 which are enumerated
below:-
"1. That she shall furnish FDR in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with an undertaking to
report back in the Court before the next
date of hearing in the learned Trial Court
failing which the said amount shall stand
forfeited without giving any further notice.
2. That she shall furnish itinerary and her
address during her stay abroad.
3. That she shall not seek extension of her
stay on any other ground including
medical ground.
4. That she shall authorize her counsel for
receiving notice on her behalf during her
stay abroad and will file the acceptance of
her counsel in this regard and the trial of
the case shall not be got adjourned on
account of absence of the petitioner.
5. That she shall produce her surety in the
Court to give statement with regard to his
no objection if applicant/accused is
allowed to go abroad."
6. It may be pertinent here to mention that no doubt last year
when the order was passed on 12.8.2008, a statement was
purported to have been made by the learned counsel on behalf
of the petitioner that in future she will not apply, to undertake
travel along with her daughter however, I do not consider that
having made such a statement, that should act as an
impediment and prevent her from applying to the Court to
undertake the travel abroad in future at any given point of time
subject to the conditions which the Court may like to impose.
This is because it has been noticed number of times that the
courts willingly or unwillingly suggest to the counsel that in case
the suggestion of the Court is not accepted favourably, the relief
may not be given and thus the counsel at times make
concessions on behalf of the client without any legal
authorization. The purpose of restricting the right to movement
of an accused should normally be actuated by two paramount
considerations, one is that he does not flee from the processes of
law and secondly that he should not undertake the travel to
destroy the evidence. There is no such allegation or
apprehension from the side of the respondents, that is why the
application has been considered on merits rather than rejected
on this flimsy technicality.
7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
8. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties under the signature of the Court Master.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2009
RN
