The fundamental right to travel guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused are essential considerations in imposing travel restrictions on an accused.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned condition in the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned ACMM-2 cum ACJ in CC No. CBI - 13/20 wherein the learned ACMM-2 cum ACJ while allowing the application moved by the petitioner for cancellation/rescinding the LOC issued by the respondent, has directed the petitioner to seek permission of the Court before undertaking foreign travel.

2. In the present case, the brief facts are that the CBI has registered a case on 29.05.2017 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) and13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations are that the petitioner was the M.D. of a company namely IC Textiles Ltd. and had borrowed loan from the complainant Bank. It is alleged that the accused committed criminal breach of trust by selling away the stocks/inventory/machinery which were hypothecated to the Bank without their knowledge. It is alleged that the accused persons had siphoned of 28.73 crores of public money and caused wrongful loss to the bank and correspondingly wrongful gain to themselves. Subsequently, based on the above allegations, an LOC was issued against the petitioner.

3. The learned ACMM-2 cum ACJ after hearing detailed arguments was of the view that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner was never arrested by the CBI during investigation. The apprehension of the CBI that the petitioner may flee from the country to evade the trial also was found baseless as it seemed to be an apprehension. The ACMM-2 cum ACJ held that the accused has been residing in Delhi for last 27 years having deep roots in the society. Hence, the LOC issued against the petitioner was found to be wrongly issued and the same was rescinded. However, while passing the order, the learned ACMM-2 cum ACJ imposed the condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country without permission of the Court. It is this last finding which has been challenged by the petitioner.

4. Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, learned SPP for the respondent/CBI has placed reliance on para 5 of the reply which reads as under:

"5. That the Ld. Trial Coui1 made an observation in its above mentioned order dated 12.08.2021 that "in order to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial, conditions may be imposed". It is imperative to mention here that the applicant is an accused of an offence related to Economic fraud involving public money to the tune of Rs. 28.73 Crores. The applicant submitted false & fabricated stock statement to the Canara Bank to avail higher level of credit. The applicant came in to an agreement for sale of Banks Mortgaged property with Mr Neeraj Saluja of M/s SEL Textiles Ltd. without obtaining the consent from the Board of Members of the company M/s I.C. Textiles Ltd. and without informing the creditors Banks. The applicant dishonestly opened the account with HDFC, Kailash Building Branch on the basis of false & fabricated company's resolution dt 12.05.2000 and got realized the sales proceeds in this account for cheating Canara Bank and siphoned off public money, which ultimately resulted in wrongful gain to M/s I C Textiles Ltd and wrongful loss to Canara Bank."

5. Mr Bhardwaj, learned SPP states that the petitioner has sold properties which were mortgaged to the bank and has misappropriated Rs. 28.73 crores of public money. Hence, he argues that the condition has been rightly imposed by the learned ACMM-2 cum ACJ.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. In a similar case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled `Nandini Bhatnagar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi' in CRL.M.C. 4231/2012, decided on 14.12.2012 in para 10 observed as under:

"10. Undoubtedly, the accused's right to travel can be curtailed by a reasonable, transparent and fair procedure, but in the opinion of this Court such a restriction should be rarely imposed