S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE present criminal revision petition assails an order of the Special judge dated 15. 1. 2007, permitting the respondent accused (hereafter referred to as "the respondent") to travel abroad for 15 days upon imposition of certain conditions.

( 2 ) A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 9. 10. 2006 by the Central bureau of Investigation (CBI) against several persons, including the petitioner. The FIR alleged that on the basis of a reference received from the Ministry of defence, a preliminary enquiry was held which indicated that several persons conspired during the period 1998-2001 in the matter of procurement of 7 Barak anti Missile Defence Systems (AMD) and 200 missiles from M/s IAI Israel and its sister concern M/s Rafael, Israel. The FIR alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy the then Defence Minister and the then Chief of Naval Staff abused their position and showed undue favour in the award of contract to M/s IAI israel.

( 3 ) THE FIR also alleged that the respondent had met with the other accused at the official residence of the then Defence Minister and paid Rs. 1 crore. The FIR further recited that as per enquiry huge amounts of suspected payments had been remitted from M/s Mortoren-Und-Turbines Union (MTU) in the bank accounts of M/s Dynatron Services, a concern managed by the respondent and his family members during the relevant period. It was alleged that the facts mentioned disclosed commission of cognizable offences under Sections 9 and 13 (2)read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the accused persons.

( 4 ) THE respondent moved an application on 2. 1. 2007 before the Special judge, claiming that he is a non-resident Indian, (NRI) for the last 23 years and permanently settled in the United Kingdom (U. K ). He alleged that he had come to India on 28. 9. 2006 to attend the 91st birthday of his ailing father, when on 9. 10. 2006, the CBI conducted a search at various places including his residence and arbitrarily seized passports of all family members including that of the respondent and his son. The respondent stated that the allegations contained in the FIR, as far as he is concerned were entirely baseless.

( 5 ) IN his application seeking permission to leave India for a limited period it was alleged that there was no truth in the contents of the FIR that huge amounts of suspected payments were remitted from M/s MTU in the bank accounts of M/s Dynatron Services. He also asserted that he was neither a close relative nor business associate of Shri Sudhir Choudhry or M/s MTU and M/s eureka Corporation both of which were named in the FIR. He similarly disclaimed any relationship with TSL Defence Technologies Pvt. Ltd. or Shri Arvind Khanna. The respondent alleged that the entire basis of the FIR was a "sting" operation of Tehelka, where another accused Shri R. K. Jain had dragged several names including respondent's name, and upon being confronted in questioning, by two commissions of enquiry, (constituted for the purpose of finding complete facts), the said Shri Jain had, on oath asserted that his conversations in the sting operations were mere bragging. The respondent averred that ever since he was settled in the U. K. , he was engaged in the business of steel, iron ore, heavy machinery, information technology and media and that in 1993 started publishing a daily newspaper in London. In 1999 he became the CEO of a US software company.

( 6 ) IT was claimed that in order to maintain his non-resident status in accordance with the Income Tax Act he has to remain out of India for more than 182 days and that continued seizure of his passport jeopardized his NRI status and resulted in irreparable loss. He also alleged that for more than three months since 10. 10. 2006 he had to postpone visits abroad and reschedule business meetings but such indefinite postponement could not be continued for ever.

( 7 )