IMPORTANT POINT
The right to travel must be balanced with the right of the prosecuting agency to ensure the accused attends trial and does not abscond.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma,, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC with the following prayers:

"a. set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.022 passed by Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi, LearnedASJ-04, Central District Court Tis Hazari, whereby application filed by the petitioner bearing IA No.01/2022 was erroneously and mechanically dismissed.

b. permit the petitioner to travel to London for a period of 4 weeks in order to receive medical treatment for his rare medical condition affecting the vision of his eyes;

c. Set aside/suspend the Look Out Circular, dated 05.08.2019, issued at the behest of the respondent for the period of travel of the Petitioner."

2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application for setting aside the look-out circular (LOC) issued at the behest of the complainant department and seeking permission to travel abroad for receiving treatment for his rare medical condition affecting his vision was declined predominantly on the ground that the petitioner failed to set up any case to set aside the LOC. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner tried to flee away from the country soon after the registration of the FIR and because of that reason LOC was requested to be opened by the E.D. so that the petitioner could be apprehended in case he tries to flee away.

3. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that while considering the issue of bail in case FIR No. 172/2018 PS EOW, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL) 11818/2019 vide order dated 18.12.2019 inter alia directed that the petitioner will not travel abroad without the leave of the learned Trial Court. Learned Special Judge inter alia held that the petitioner had not moved any application before the learned Trial Court dealing with the EOW case for seeking permission to travel abroad. In respect of the medical urgency, the learned Trial Court was of the view that there is no record to show that the petitioner cannot receive the treatment safely in India.

4. Facts in brief, are that the petitioner is a British citizen of Indian origin and has been residing in India since 2008. The petitioner is a director in M/S Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd and M/S Zenica Performance Cars Pvt Ltd. The aforesaid companies are registered under the Companies Act, of 1956 and are the dealers of Audi and Porsche cars. The accused acting on behalf of the company approached the HDFC bank to seek various credit facilities and as per the banking procedures, the credit facilities were extended by the bank on the basis of various financial and other documents and information provided by the accused acting on behalf of the company and in order to secure the credit facilities a Deed of Hypothecation was executed between the Petitioner and the bank. The facilities sanctioned by the HDFC bank were renewed from time to time based on the documents submitted by the company. Subsequently, it was informed to the bank that the company had been suffering huge losses for the last 4 financial years and had been forging the documents to obtain credit facilities.

5. Thereafter, it has been alleged that during a comprehensive stock audit conducted by the bank, it was discovered that the various documents which were submitted by the Petitioner were forged and in order to obtain the same, Petitioner had misrepresented their outstanding balance with J & K Bank, leading to a huge difference between the due amount shown of Rs.11,64,48,702/- and the actual amount owed was Rs. 49,51,50,702/-. In due course of the audit scheme, it was also found that the petitioner had fraudulently submitted a list of 97 demo cars as existing in the stock. However, it was found that only 42 cars were located during the stock audit. Out of the 97 demo cars provided by Zenica Cars, there were 32 demo cars which were funded by HDFC Bank Ltd. and the amount against the sale of thes