IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Aarti Singal – Appellant
Versus
Serious Fraud Investigation Office - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 4330 of 2022, Crl.M.A. 17734 of 2022
Decided on : 19-01-2023
Bail order - Seeking modification - Seeking modification of condition imposed in Para 41(v) of bail order was dismissed – Held, Without going into merits of case, Court consider that condition that petitioner shall not travel beyond NCR without permission of Court is slightly unreasonable - Petitioner is a lady having married daughters in Mumbai - It has repeatedly been held by this Court and Superior Court that conditions imposed while granting bail should not be unreasonable - Reason for imposing condition while granting bail is that accused may not misuse liberty of bail and should remain available with for purpose of investigation or trial – Court consider that this condition imposed by learned Trial Court is harsh - Thus, condition No. 5 in para-41 of order is modified to extent that petitioner in case of travelling beyond NCR and within country will inform learned Trial Court - Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following prayers:
AND
b) Pass Necessary Order and Directions whereby modifying the condition imposed at Para 41(v) of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Spl. Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka in the matter “SFIO Vs. Bhushan Airways Services Pvt Ltd” Bearing CC No.374/2022 which requires the Petitioner to take prior permission of the Ld. Special Judge Court, Dwarka Court in order to travel outside NCR of Delhi.
2. Sh. N. Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court granted the bail to the petitioner vide order dated 28.03.2022. The bail was granted subject to the following conditions:
(i) the applicant/accused is admitted to bail on her furnishing PB each in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount;
(ii) the applicant/accused shall visit office of SFIO daily for the next 20 working days. She will appear before the IO at 10.00 am and would have after conclusion of the proceedings of the day. Subsequently for the next two weeks, she would appear thrice i.e. on Mond0y, Wednesday and Friday whereafter she would appear twice i.e. Monday and Friday for the next two weeks; needless to submit that she will join the investigation as and when directed by SFIO/IO.
(iii) the applicant/accused shall drop google pin of her mobile number and her location ON and furnish the same to the IO concerned for the next six months;
(iv) the applicant/accused shall not try to contact/influence the complainant/witnesses in any manner whatsoever;
(v) the applicant/accused shall not go out of NCR of Delhi without the permission of the Court.
(vi) she will surrender the passport to the IO within two working days. Department can also issue LOC qua her if deemed fit.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition No. 5 which says that the applicant/accused shall not go out of NCT of Delhi without the permission of the Court is causing a lot of inconvenience to the petitioner.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that two married daughters of the petitioner live in Mumbai and she has to go regularly to the Mumbai and every time she is being put to inconvenience to seek permission of the Court. Learned senior counsel submits that this condition is unreasonable and may be set aside.
5. Ms. Kunjala Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the petition. Learned counsel submits that the investigation is still continuing and if this condition is waived, there is possibility that the petitioner may not join the investigation.
6. Learned counsel submits that the similar application being moved by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court has been dismissed by a reasoned order and therefore there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the order of the learned Trial Court.
7. I have considered the submissions. Without going into the merits of the case, I consider that the condition that the petitioner shall not travel beyond the NCR without the permission of the Court is slightly unreasonable. The petitioner is a lady having married daughters in the Mumbai. It has repeatedly been held by this Court and the Superior Court that the conditions imposed while granting the bail should not be unreasonable. The reason for imposing the condition while granting the bail is that the accused may not misuse the liberty of the bail and should remain available with for the purp
The jurisdictional magistrate should consider applications for permission to travel when the chargesheet has not been filed, regardless of bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court.
Bail conditions can be modified under inherent powers to prevent undue hardship to the accused while maintaining the integrity of the trial and respecting personal liberties.
The fundamental right to travel abroad in criminal cases is subject to reasonable restrictions, and the imposition of such restrictions is justified in the interest of justice.
The court affirmed its inherent power to modify bail conditions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and prevent undue hardship to the accused.
The right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21, and courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.