Gautam Khaitan vs Enforcement Directorate
2015 Latest Caselaw 2848 Del

$~54
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                         Date of Decision: 9th April, 2015
+      CRL.M.C. 1194/2015
       GAUTAM KHAITAN                                    .... Petitioner
                   Through:            Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
                                       Advocate, with Mr. Mr.P.K.
                                       Dubey, Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms.
                                       Roopa Dayal, Mr. Saurabh Verma,
                                       Mr. Sidhant Kapur & Mr. Saeed
                                       Hussain, Advocates

                          versus

       ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE                ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC,
                             Ms. Manish Rana Singh and
                             Ms. Hina Shaheen, Advocates
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       ORDER

% (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. No.4424/2015 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.)

Petitioner is a Lawyer by profession, who seeks permission of this Court to travel Philippines from 14th April, 2015 to 17th April, 2015 to resolve a dispute of his client with its partner-Alpheta Investments, which is a joint venture company.

At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has earlier travelled to Hong Kong in the year 2014 to resolve the said dispute and infact, it was resolved but some differences have

Crl.M.C.No.1194/2015 Page 1 again cropped up and petitioner has been asked by his client to reach Philippines by taking a flight which is scheduled for 13th April, 2015 at 10:45 p.m. and instead of returning on 17th April, 2015, petitioner would be returning on 16th April, 2015 by taking a flight at 9:25 p.m., subject to the flight being on time.

The opposition to this application by learned standing counsel for respondent is on the ground that the statement of petitioner is being recorded and his departure from the country would hamper the investigation as petitioner would siphon of the illegal proceeds of money laundering.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that after filing of the complaint, there is no occasion for carrying out further investigation and to submit so, reliance is placed upon a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Rev. P. No.321/2004 S. Nagarajan Vs. State. rendered on 15th March, 2012.

Reliance is placed upon by learned standing counsel for respondent on decision of High Court of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P.No.2686/2013, Narendra Mohan Singh & anr. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi & anr delivered on 22nd March, 2014 to submit that there is a provision for filing of the supplementary complaint.

The question raised regarding filing of the supplementary complaint is left open to be considered in the main petition on the next date of hearing. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel for respondent has relied upon Apex Court's order of 1st September, 2014 in Crl.MP No.5764/2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4516/2012 Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya v. State of Jharkhand Tr.Dir. of Enforcement Crl.M.C.No.1194/2015 Page 2 to submit that Investigating Officer of this case (or a responsible officer deputed by him) must accompany petitioner to Philippines for ensuring that petitioner does not indulge in siphoning of illegal proceeds of money laundering.

Mr. Siddhartha Luthra, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that Apex Court's order in Manoj (supra) requiring three police officials to accompany the accused abroad has to be seen in the factual situation of the said case. To submit so, attention of this Court was drawn to order of 13th February, 2012 of High Court of Jharkhand in Bail Application No.8919/2011 Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya Vs. State of Jharkhand through Directors of Enforcement to point out that accused of the above-said case had managed to visit foreign countries thrice while there was 'Look Out Circular' prohibiting him to visit foreign countries and to rule out the possibility of the said accused absconding or tampering with the evidence, such an unusual condition was put by the Apex Court in the order of 1st September, 2014. It was pointed out by learned senior counsel for petitioner that in the instant case, 'Look Out Circular' issued against petitioner has been already withdrawn and there is no apprehension of his tampering with the evidence.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent interjects to assert that the petitioner is accused in money laundering, so he is required to give an affidavit that he has no bank account in Philippines and he will not directly or indirectly make an effort to tamper with the evidence.

Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's affidavit in the aforesaid terms would be promptly placed on record.

Upon petitioner furnishing affidavit in aforesaid terms, respondent Crl.M.C.No.1194/2015 Page 3 is directed to release passport of petitioner, who is permitted to travel to Philippines on 13th April, 2015 and to return to Delhi in the night of 16th April, 2015 (or on the succeeding day, in the event of flight being delayed) subject to following conditions:-

i) That applicant/accused shall file a detailed affidavit disclosing his detailed programme including his stay at various stations abroad, telephone numbers and residential address; and

ii) That applicant/accused shall furnish an FDR for an amount of `50 lakhs for surety of his return to India in time;

iii) That he shall produce his surety in the court to give statement that he has no objection in case he is allowed to go abroad;

iv) That he shall not seek extension of his stay in Philippines on any other ground;

v) That he shall surrender back his passport with the trial court within 48 hours on his return from abroad.

With aforesaid directions, the application stands disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of Court Master.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 09, 2015 r

Crl.M.C.No.1194/2015 Page 4