Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Nanda vs Cbi on 1 December, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 1st December, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 4484/2014
SANJEEV NANDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Sandeep
Kapur and Mr. Vivek Suri,
Advocates.
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for
CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. By filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟ for short), the petitioner Sanjeev
Nanda seeks modification of order dated 29.04.2008 passed by this
Court in Bail Application No.749/2008.
2. Succinctly stating the facts giving rise to the present case are
that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978
read with Section 120B of IPC in case RC No.AC1/2008/A0001
registered by CBI. The petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2008 at
Mumbai. He moved an application for bail bearing Bail Application
No.748/2008 and was released on bail vide order dated 29.04.2008
subject to following conditions: -
"18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail at this
stage. Each of the petitioners shall be released on bail on
their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala House,
New Delhi. The petitioners are not permitted to leave the
country without the prior permission of the trial court.
As far as, each of the petitioners will appear before the
trial court as and when the matter is fixed there and is
addition appear before it on the first working Monday of
every calendar month. At each appearance, they will
furnish their correct present address to the trial court.
The passport of Mr. Bipin Shah seized by the CBI will be
deposited in the trial court. The impounded passport of
Mr. Suresh Nanda will also be deposited with the trial
court. As regards the passport of other petitioners i.e.
Mr. Sanjeev Nanda and Mr. Asuthosh Verma, they will
also surrender their passports in the trial court forthwith.
The petitioners will not influence any of the witnesses
and not seek unnecessary adjournments before the trial
court. They will not impede the fair progress of the trial
in any manner whatsoever."
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is engaged in the business of hospitality and has to travel
abroad. During the last about six years, the petitioner after seeking due
permission from the trial court has travelled abroad on numerous
occasions to various countries and has complied with all the terms and
conditions imposed by the trial court and the petitioner never misused
the liberty granted to him. He further submits that whenever the
petitioner used to travel abroad, the petitioner has to move an
application seeking permission to travel abroad and he used to take
permission for release of his passport by the trial court. In view of the
conditions imposed by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2008, the
petitioner used to spend about ten days in the process of obtaining
permission to travel abroad.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is relying upon
judgment in „Anil Rai vs. CBI‟, 2008 (4) JCC 2464. He urges that the
condition requiring the petitioner to seek permission from the trial
court before travelling abroad is liable to be waived.
5. Per contra learned Special PP for CBI urges that on numerous
occasions the petitioner was granted the permission to travel abroad.
The petitioner cannot seek unrestricted permission to travel abroad as
the same may delay the trial of the case.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
7. It is a settled law that while granting anticipatory bail, Court
may impose certain conditions in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case as it may think fit. Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.
enumerates that some conditions which can be imposed while granting
anticipatory bail. Section 437 of Cr.P.C. also provides that when a
person accused or suspected for commission of offence punishable
with imprisonment which may extend to ten years or more, before
releasing him on bail under sub-section (1) of Section 437, the Court
may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary:
(a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this
Chapter;
(b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an
offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, suspected,
of the commission of which he is suspected; and
(c) That such person shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
and
(d) Otherwise in the interests of justice.
8. From a bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of Sections 437(3)
and 438(2) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that the conditions which can be
imposed are primarily with a view to ensure availability of the accused
during investigation and trial and to ensure non-interference with
Courts of justice. Other conditions which the Court may think fit can
also be imposed but idea should be to ensure his presence as and when
required and his non-interference with the investigation, enquiry or
trial.
9. In the present case, the petitioner moved an application for bail
and while granting bail this Court passed an order for release of
petitioner on certain conditions. The said conditions were imposed to
ensure presence of the petitioner during trial. The condition regarding
appearance of the petitioner on every first Monday of calendar month
was waived by this Court in Crl. M.C. No.844/2013 vide order dated
01.03.2013.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and
the fact that the petitioner has already been granted permission on
numerous occasions to travel abroad, it can not be said that the
condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2013 is
unreasonable. I do not find any sufficient ground to waive the
condition of obtaining prior permission of the trial court before leaving
the country.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 1, 2014
hs
