Delhi High Court
Sukhdev Dhillon vs State on 20 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 13th December, 2010
Date of Order: December 20, 2010
+ Crl. MC No.3098/2010
% 20.12.2010
Sukhdev Dhillon ...Petitioner
Versus
State ...Respondent
Counsels:
Mr. T.A. Mir for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court to go
abroad.
2. The petitioner is involved in a case of cheating to the tune of several crore of
rupees. He was granted regular bail by the Court with the condition that he shall not
leave the country without permission of the court. The petitioner has moved an
application before the trial court seeking leave of the court to go to Ethiopia in connection
with his business. The contention of the petitioner is that he was director of Mega Farm
Private Limited and he needed to go to Ethiopia in concern with the business of his
company regarding farming.
3. The facts of the case shows that the petitioner had floated a company in India of
Radiocabs Services and got financed 103 Radio cabs from Kotak Mahindra Bank.
However, after getting these cars financed from Kotak Mahindra, the petitioner did not
Crl.MC 3098/2010 Page 1 Of 2
pay the installments. The petitioner was also supposed to get the cars fitted with
GPS/GRS Test trekking device so that the location of the cars could be traced. Out of
104 cars, the petitioner did not fix this device on 97 radio taxies with the result that the
complainant could not locate and trek the vehicles. The post-dated cheques issued by
the petitioner for payment of installment got bounced. The petitioner did not pay any
heed to the demands of complainant and as a result of this the complainant had
approached the court and repossessed 74 vehicles. It was also found that despite there
being flow of cash received in Citi Bank account number 0802254229 of the petitioner,
he did not honour financial liabilities towards complainant with the result that the
petitioner caused loss of about Rs. 4 crore of rupees to complainant.
4. Looking into all these facts, I consider that there is every possibility of the
petitioner running away from the jurisdiction of the court unless the petitioner is made to
give a proper security for his return. The petition of the petitioner is allowed if the
petitioner furnishes a security of Rs.3.5 crore of immovable properties or bank guarantee
with the trial court. In case the petitioner gives security of Rs.3.5 crore in the form of
immovable property of bank guarantee, the property may belong to him or to any of his
relative or friend, the petitioner may proceed to Ethiopia in respect of his business.
However, the trial court shall verify the title deeds of immovable property before
accepting the surety bond. The surety shall be given by submitting original title deeds of
the property and an undertaking of the owner of the property that in case the petitioner
does not return back, the court shall be at liberty to get the property sealed and realize
the amount. The valuation of the property shall also be filed along with surety bonds.
5. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
December 20, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl.MC 3098/2010 Page 2 Of 2
