Delhi High Court
Mr S. Pal Gupta & Ors. vs State on 23 July, 2010
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.A. No. 3297/2010 in Crl.M.C.No.2142/2007
% Date of Reserve: 16.07.2010
Date of decision: 23.07.2010
Mr.S.Pal Gupta and Ors. ...Petitioners/Applicants
Through: Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh
and Mr.Nitesh Jain, Advocate
Versus
State ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Balecha, Mr.Gaurav Singh and
Mr.P.S. Singhal, Advocate
With
+ Crl.M.A. No. 3296/2010 in Crl.M.C.No.911/2003
Mr.S.P. Gupta and Ors. ...Petitioners/Applicants
Through: Mr.K.K.Sud, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Gurpreet Singh
and Mr.Nitesh Jain, Advocate
Versus
State ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Balecha, Mr.Gaurav Singh and
Mr.P.S. Singhal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
1. Crl.M.C.No. 2142/2007 and Crl.M.C.911/2003 were disposed of by
a common order dated 04.03.2010, which reads as under:-
"1. This is a part heard matter. However, today learned
counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the
petitioners do not want this matter to be disposed of on
merits and seeks liberty to raise all the points which have
been raised before this Court in the Trial Court at an
[Crl.M.A.3297/2010 in Crl.M.C.2142/2007 & Page 1 of 4]
Crl.M.A.3296/2010 in Crl.M.C. 911/2003
appropriate stage at the stage of hearing arguments on
charge. However, they seek protection from arrest and from
personal appearance which order stands granted in their
favour for the last more than five years.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Mohit Mathur
has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner.
3. Taking all these facts into consideration including the
factum of pendency of the case for a period of more than five
years and taking into consideration that ultimately it is for
the trial Court to decide as to whether a charge is to be
framed or not in the aforesaid case against the petitioner and
to further decide whether the case should proceed or not in
view of some of the objections raised on behalf of the
petitioner about the propriety of issuance of summoning
order etc., it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the
petitioners to raise all the issues which have been raised in
this petition before this Court at the appropriate stage/stage
of framing of charge before the concerned Court.
4. Thus, the said Court is directed to deal with all the
issues which have been raised before this Court in this
petition at the appropriate stage/at the stage of framing of
charge and also to dispose of pending applications before it.
5. The petitioners to appear before the concerned
Court/trial Court on 26.03.2010.
6. The petitioners shall also be released on bail on the
first date of their appearance which shall be on or before 26th
March, 2010 on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the concerned court/trial Court subject to
the condition that they shall appear as and when required by
the Court concerned and would join the investigation if so
required by the investigating agency and would not delay the
matter. The petitioners shall also be exempted from
personal appearance on an application moved by them
through duly authorized counsel unless and until they are
required by the Court for any purpose. The petitioners
shall not leave the country without the permission of
the court concerned and would not delay the trial of
the case.
7. With these observations the petition is disposed of.
8. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
However, the interim order passed in various applications
would remain in operation till 26.03.2010.
9. The trial Court/investigating agency will proceed from
the stage where the case is pending subject to the aforesaid
directions.
10. A copy of the order be sent to the concerned
Court/trial Court.
11. Dasti."
2. The applicants, who were petitioners before this Court in the
aforesaid petitions, have filed these applications seeking
modification/clarification of the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2010 with
[Crl.M.A.3297/2010 in Crl.M.C.2142/2007 & Page 2 of 4]
Crl.M.A.3296/2010 in Crl.M.C. 911/2003
respect to the condition imposed for seeking permission of the trial
court for going abroad. It has been prayed in the aforesaid applications
that;
"(i) Pass necessary orders and directions thereby
allowing the present application and modifying or
deleting the above-said condition of seeking prior
permission from going abroad imposed by this
Hon'ble Court vide the order dated 04.03.2010.
(ii) Pass any other order of direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The applications have been opposed by the respondent by
stating that the applications are a misuse of the process of Court
inasmuch as the petitioners having enjoyed the benefit of the order
dated 04.03.2010, cannot now avoid the burden of the conditions
prescribed by the said order as conditions for the benefit. It is also
submitted that the applicants cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate or use the bogey of "waste of time" to negate the very
salutary requirement of close supervision of law over the movements
of the accused. It is further submitted that the judgments cited relate
to the concessions granted by the State and are clearly distinguishable
and thus, cannot be relied upon by the applicants to support the
prayer made in the applications. It is also submitted that taking into
consideration the conduct of the one of the accused, the impugned
order needs no modification/clarification.
4. During the course of arguments, the applicants have not pressed
the application except for Mr.Kaveen Gupta and Mr.Vipul Gupta and
have confined their relief to seek clarification of the order with regard
to the discretion of the Magistrate while passing an order granting
permission to go abroad and further to say that he would not be
influenced by anything said by this Court, subject matter of the
controversy.
5. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers this
Court to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant, which can include a condition that the applicant would not
leave India without the previous permission of the court. A perusal of
[Crl.M.A.3297/2010 in Crl.M.C.2142/2007 & Page 3 of 4]
Crl.M.A.3296/2010 in Crl.M.C. 911/2003
the order passed above goes to show that in the present case, the said
permission is to be granted by the Court concerned.
6. Insofar as the discretion left with the Magistrate regarding
permission to travel abroad is also unfettered except that it is
circumscribed by the condition that while granting permission the
Magistrate would ensure that there was no delay in the trial of the
case.
7. Considering the language of the order impugned in these
applications and the other circumstances of the case, I do not think
there is any necessity to clarify the impugned order any further. The
discretion vested in the Magistrate is sufficient to guide the Magistrate
to pass appropriate orders as and when situation arises.
8. The applications are accordingly disposed of.
July 23, 2008 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
dc
[Crl.M.A.3297/2010 in Crl.M.C.2142/2007 & Page 4 of 4]
Crl.M.A.3296/2010 in Crl.M.C. 911/2003
