Orissa High Court
K. Chandrasekhar @ vs Central Bureau Of .... Opposite Party ... on 4 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 75 of 2025
K. Chandrasekhar @ .... Petitioner(s)
Kuppuswami Chandrasekhar
Mr. A.K. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
Central Bureau of .... Opposite Party (s)
Investigation
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.03.2025
02. 1. Heard.
2. The present revision petition is directed against
the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Special
C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case
No.03/120 of 2025, whereby the application of the
petitioner dated 29.01.2025 seeking return of his
passport for a period of two months enabling him to
travel to London and Austin for the purpose of business
has been turned down.
3. The petitioner had moved an application seeking
release of his passport to undertake a professional
business trip to London and Austin in the month of
February, 2025. He has given a travel schedule. The
schedule indicates as under:-
"* 17th February, 2025 from Bengaluru to London
* 17th March, 2025 from London to Austin
* 17th April, 2025 from Austin to Bhubaneswar"
4. The trial court dealt with the contentions raised
by the petitioner and turned down the application, inter
alia, observing as under:-
"On the perusal of case record, it reveals that on
16.10.2023, the accused-petitioner, namely K.
Chandrasekhar had appeared and he had been
released on bail by this court in view of the order
dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2021
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5234/2021 (Aman
Preet Singh vrs. C,B,I, through Director). As
per the direction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India, this Court had imposed some conditions for
release of the accused-petitioner on bail out of
which one of the conditions was to surrender the
passport of the petitioner. In compliance to that
order, the accused-petitioner had deposited his
passport before this court on 16.10.2023 and had
been released on bail. The intention of this Court
while imposing such condition, as per the direction
of the Hon‟ble Apex Court of India, was to restrict
him from fleeing from the reach of the Court by
using his passport. In addition to that the accused-
petitioner namely K. Chandrasekhar @
Kupuswami Chandrasekhar is a permanent
resident of Begaluru, Karnatak which is beyond
the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, the chances
of absconding from the course of justice cannot be
ruled out. Apart from that, the allegation against
the accused is that he has misappropriated a huge
amount of money received from the gullible
investors, by entering into criminal conspiracy with
other co-accused persons. Therefore, he should not
be allowed to move away from the reach of the
court. Moreover, one of the conditions of the bail
order of the accused is that „he shall not default in
personal attendance before this court as and when
required‟. Apart from that, ratios of the judgments
cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
not squarely applicable to the facts and
circumstances of this case. Under such
circumstances, the passport of the accused-
petitioner cannot be released for the purpose of his
visit to London and Austin for the period sought for
or for any other purposes. As such, I am not
inclined to allow the petition filed by the accused-
petitioner for release of his passport and hence,
the same stands rejected. Accordingly, the Misc.
Case is disposed of."
5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present revision petition. In the revision petition, the
petitioner has filed an additional affidavit. In the
additional affidavit, the petitioner has relied upon certain
documents to establish the necessity of his travel to the
destination, as mentioned above.
6. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner
by relying upon the judgment operating in the field
regarding the subject has submitted that the trial of the
case has not yet been commenced and the petitioner has
right to travel. He further submits that even after filing of
the charge sheet, the copy of the charge sheet had not
been supplied and the matter is at the stage of
appearance. He has drawn my attention to one of the
orders of this Court dated 27.09.2024 passed in CRLMA
No. 169 of 2024 in regard to the prayer of one of the co-
accused to travel to U.S.A. Mr. Acharya, has also pointed
out that in the earlier occasion whenever this Court has
given indulgence to the petitioner to travel abroad, he
has strict to the schedule and after undertaking the
journey, he has surrendered his passport within time
and there was no complaint at any point of time
regarding any violation in that regard.
7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has
vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
He contended that the petitioner is repeatedly travelling
to a particular destination and he is one of the accused
in serious offence. He further contended that repeated
journey to a particular destination creates a serious
doubt regarding the cause of his travel. The suspicion is
further strengthened because the petitioner has filed a
supplementary affidavit before this Court annexing
certain documents, which appears to have been
manufactured. The supplementary affidavit has been
filed on 18.02.2025 annexing some e-mail
communication of the previous date. It is apparent from
the e-mail communication attached to the
supplementary affidavit that the same has been
manufactured so as to impress upon the Court the
necessity of his travel. Mr. Nayak has also highlighted
that the reasons for which the petitioner had sought for
release of his passport to travel to London is no more
available to him because the exhibition which was
scheduled in February, 2025 has already been
concluded. Therefore, there is no cause subsists in
favour of the petitioner to release the passport.
8. I have carefully taken into consideration the
rival contentions of both the parties. It is apparently
clear that the trial of the case has not yet commenced.
The matter is at the stage of appearance. The petitioner
has been availing the concession granted by the Court
and has been travelling time to time. There is no
complaint regarding any violation. However, the
petitioner was intending to travel to London to attend
Vision Expo Exhibition which was scheduled for 19th
February, 2025. Hence, the cause of the travel has
already been over and the petitioner has to re-schedule
his visit. It would be expedient if the petitioner moves a
fresh application before the learned trial court
enumerating the reason of his travel and the schedule of
the travel with itinerary. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Special C.J.M., C.B.I.,
Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No.03/120 of 2025
is set aside and liberty is granted to the petitioner to
move a fresh application before the learned trial court
inter alia urging all the points as has been raised in the
present petition. If such application is moved, the trial
court shall consider the same within a week in the light
of the contentions raised by the petitioner in para-7 of
the petition, which is reproduced below:-
"7. That it is respectfully submitted that regarding
interim release of his passport during pendency of
the case, there are several judgments of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, different High Courts including out
Hon‟ble Court, have laid down the law that as to in
which circumstances, a passport can be released.
One of the leading case of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court, i.e., Parvez Noordin Lokhandwall Vs. State
of Maharastra, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 77, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court at para-25 of the said
judgment, has observed as follows:-
"Having regard to the genesis of the
dispute as well as the issue as to
whether the appellant is likely to flee
from justice, if he were to be permitted to
travel to US, we find on the basis of
previous record of the appellant, that
there is no reason or justification to deny
him the permission, which has been
sought to travel to US for eight weeks.
The appellant is an Indian citizen and
holds an Indian passport. It is true that
an FIR has been lodged against the
appellant, that, in our view, should not in
itself prevent him from travelling to the US
where he is a resident since 1985,
particularly when it has been drawn to
the attention of the High Court and this
Court that serious consequence would
ensue in terms of the invalidation of the
Green Card, if the appellant is not
permitted to travel. The record indicates
the large amount of litigation between the
family of the appellant and the
complainant. Notwithstanding or
perhaps, because of this, the appellant
has frequently travelled between US and
India even after filing of the complaint
and the FIR. We accordingly are of the
view that the application for modification
was incorrectly rejected by the High Court
and the appellant ought to have been
allowed to travel to US for a period of
eight weeks."
The ratio decided in the case supra that the past
travel history, permanent resident-ship and holding
an Indian passport are the key factors for release of
the passport.
7.1 Another judgment in Srikant Mohata vs.
Republic of India (CBI), reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Orissa 13, wherein the Hon‟ble Court has
taken note of the professional career of the petitioner
therein and released the passport even though the
petitioner therein was released on interim bail.
7.2 Recently, two co-accused persons of the present
case, namely, Dr. Shyam Vasudev Rao and Indrajit
De approached the learned court for interim release
of their passport. The same having been denied by
the learned court, they approached the Hon‟ble High
Court in Criminal Revision No.672 of 2023 and 690
of 2023 respectively. By judgment dated 08.04.2024
and 10.04.2024, the Hon‟ble Court has granted
liberty to the petitioners therein to travel abroad and
directed the learned court to release their passport
for a period of two months. Both the cases have been
reported and the citations are as follows:-
i) Shyam Vasudev Rao vs. Republic of
India (CBI), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Orissa
1326;
ii) Indrajit De vs. Republic of India (CBI),
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Orissa 1274."
9. In view of the urgency involved in the matter,
the trial court is directed to decide the application of the
petitioner within a week from the date of production of
copy of this order.
10. With this aforesaid observations and directions,
the CRLMC is disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Ashok
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Location: High Court of Orissa
