Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Nanda vs C.B.I. on 11 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 11, 2015
+ CRL.M.C.NO.531/2015
SANJEEV NANDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur,
Mr. Vivek Suri & Mr. Apporva
Pandey, Advocates
versus
C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr.
Manoj Pant & Ms. Utkarsha Kohli,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Crl.M.A.No.2064/2014 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C.No.531/2015
While granting bail to petitioner, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order of 29th April, 2008 had put a rider on petitioner to seek prior
permission of trial court before leaving the country. Waiver of aforesaid
rider is sought by petitioner in this petition.
At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner had drawn the
attention of this Court to trial court's order of 12th January, 2015 to point
out that petitioner's earlier application to travel abroad had become
Crl.M.C.No.531/2015 Page 1
infructuous because permission to travel abroad was not granted in time
and petitioner had to re-schedule his visit whereby the business of
petitioner was adversely affected. Attention of this Court was also drawn
to order of 5th January, 2015 of trial court wherein it is noted "no time
left" and petitioner's similar application to travel abroad was deferred to
another day and by then, the meeting for which petitioner wanted to
travel abroad, had already taken place. It was pointed out by learned
senior counsel for petitioner that vide application (Annexure I colly)
petitioner had sought permission to travel to UK and UAE from 10 th
December, 2014 till 10th January, 2015 but the period of travel was
arbitrarily curtailed by trial court by order of 9th December, 2014 from
12th December, 2014 to 31st December, 2014, which had adverse affect on
the hospitality business of petitioner. It was also pointed out that
petitioner had received letter/invitation from First International Group
Pic, London to attend a meeting on 6th January, 2015 and inability of
petitioner to attend the said meeting had also adversely affected his
business.
During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner
had drawn the attention of this Court to order of 17th April, 2014
(Annexure S) to point out that co-accused Suresh Nanda has been granted
permission to travel abroad for a period of one year whereas it has been
arbitrarily denied to petitioner vide impugned order of 31 st January, 2015.
Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner has not
absented on any date of hearing before the trial court and so waiver of
condition of seeking prior permission of trial court to travel abroad
deserves to be accepted.
Crl.M.C.No.531/2015 Page 2
In all fairness, learned senior counsel had placed on record copy of
order of 1st December, 2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Crl.M.C.No.4484/2014 titled Sanjeev Nanda v. CBI wherein a similar
prayer of petitioner has been already rejected.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-CBI supports the
impugned order and submits that in view of aforesaid order of 1 st
December, 2014, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
as permission to travel abroad is always granted by the courts on priority.
In rebuttal, learned senior counsel for petitioner had placed reliance
upon decisions in G.Vetrivel Sami & Swami v. CBI 2012 (2) JCC 1179,
Hemant Setya v. State 2008 [1] JCC 90, Nandini Bhatnagar v. State Govt.
of NCT of Delhi 2013 I AD (Delhi) 387, Capt. O.P.Malhotra v. State
(NCT of Delhi) 129 (2006) DLT 324, Bina K.Ramani v. State 2010 (115)
DRJ 650 and Manmohan Singh v. CBI 2004 IV AD (Delhi) 549 to submit
that difficulty in frequently obtaining prior permission for travelling
abroad has been appreciated in afore-referred decisions and so, trial court
has erred in relying upon order of 1st December, 2014 passed in
Crl.M.C.No.4484/2014. Thus, it is submitted that petitioner is ready to
place on record undertaking that he would be present before the trial court
on every date of hearing and would travel abroad with prior intimation to
trial court with Itinerary etc.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the order of 1st
December, 2014 referred to during the course of hearing, material on
record and the decisions cited, I find that discretion to put the rider of
seeking prior permission from trial court before travelling abroad is to be
exercised in the fact situation emerging in each case. The decisions relied
Crl.M.C.No.531/2015 Page 3
upon by learned senior counsel for petitioner, are not binding precedents
as the facts of those cases were quite different. In the instant case, prayer
now made has been already considered by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in order of 1st December, 2014 [Crl.M.C.No.4484/2014] and by a
well reasoned order, the said prayer has been declined. I see no reason to
take a different view than the one taken in the aforesaid order.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no palpable error in
the impugned order and the order of 17th April, 2014 by Link Special
Judge granting permission to co-accused of one year to travel abroad
cannot be a precedent because it gives no reasons as to why permission of
one year has been granted. Such a view is being taken as we are in digital
age, where there is Skype, video conferencing etc. and business
transactions can be undertaken with the business associates abroad even
while sitting in this country.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of
petitioner that petitioner would be filing an application before the trial
court seeking permission to go to UK and UAE from 20 th February, 2015
till 10th March, 2015. Petitioner is at liberty to do so. Trial court is
cautioned to ensure that the hearing in such like applications ought not to
be deferred by just writing "no time left", as such like applications have
to be promptly dealt with, so that, purpose of seeking permission is not
frustrated.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2015
vn
Crl.M.C.No.531/2015 Page 4
