[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Arun Anand vs State Nct Of Delhi on 18 February, 2026
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18th February, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1391/2026 & CRL.M.A. 5558/2026
ARUN ANAND .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh,
Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Hanif
Chimthanawala, Mr. Harsh Kumar
and Ms. Meenakshi, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State
with SI Abhishek, PS EOW.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. A chargesheet was filed in relation to FIR No.113/2019, dated
25.06.2019, registered at PS EOW for offences under Section 420/406/120-B
IPC.
2. Petitioner herein is one of the accused in the abovesaid case.
3. The case is, reportedly, at the stage of consideration of charge.
4. When the petitioner herein i.e Mr. Arun Anand sought regular bail, the
bail was granted to him by the learned Trial Court on 30.04.2022 with certain
conditions. One of the conditions was that the accused shall not leave the
country, without prior permission of the Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a
Chartered Accountant in his seventies and he has to travel abroad frequently
and, on various previous occasions, when he had sought permission from the
learned Trial Court, he left the country with due permission and returned back
as per the itinerary. He submits that, at times, in case of exigency, it becomes
difficult to comply with the terms, well in advance and, therefore, there is a
request to waive off or relax the abovesaid condition.
6. It is submitted that if the condition is relaxed, the petitioner would, in
any case, give prior intimation about his proposed trip with complete itinerary
and details of his stay, contact numbers, etc. He also submits that since the
identity of the petitioner is not disputed, he is even ready to file an affidavit to
the abovesaid effect and his counsel can always represent him in the
abovesaid matter, unless where there is a specific direction for him to appear
in person. It is thus prayed that the abovesaid condition may be substituted by
mere direction to him to give prior information about his travel.
7. When asked, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness,
submitted that they have come to this Court directly for the modification of
the abovesaid bail order, without filing any application to the abovesaid effect
before the learned Trial Court.
8. After hearing arguments for some time, learned Senior Counsel, on
instructions, submits that he does not press the present application and seeks
liberty to file appropriate application with similar request before the learned
Trial Court. He submits that, however, if the learned Trial Court does not
accede to the abovesaid request, the petitioner may be permitted to come to
this Court again.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed.
10. Liberty as prayed for, is granted.
11. Learned Trial Court is also requested to consider the abovesaid request,
sympathetically, keeping in mind the age of the petitioner as well as the fact
that, on all previous occasions, he, reportedly, adhered to the itinerary.
12. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2026/st/sa
