The main legal point established is that under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person granted anticipatory bail may be allowed to visit abroad for specific purposes, subject to conditions imposed by the court.

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Vide a detailed order dated May 19, 2000, running into fifteen pages, recorded in Crl. Misc. No. 10738-M of 2000, Kimti Lal Jain, applicant herein, was allowed anticipatory bail. Operative part of order aforesaid, passed by K.S. Kumaran, J. reads thus :-

"Accordingly this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, if the association of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of further investigation, the investigating officer shall issue notice to the petitioner giving him sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice, the petitioner shall join investigation. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code"

2. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code deals with conditions that may be imposed when High Court or Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub- section (1). One such condition is that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

3. Vide Crl. Misc. No. 19986 of 2000 in Crl. Misc. No. 10738-M of 2000, filed under Section 482 read with Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer is for permission to the petitioner to visit abroad for business purposes.

4. It has, inter-alia, been pleaded in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application that the petitioner is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Arihant Cotsyn Limited. Apart from this unit, he is also controlling other industrial units, i.e. Arihant Industries Limited, Ludhiana, Arihant Threads Limited at Goindwal, Amritsar and is Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of these units and he has stakes and investments in the said units of about rupees three hundred crores. It has further been pleaded that taking into consideration the efforts made by the petitioner in export promotion in his units, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, vide certificate dated May 25, 1999, conferred upon M/s Arihant Threads Limited a certificate or recognition as Export House for three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002. Petitioner is permanent resident of India and regular income tax payee and but for the case is hand, i.e. RC No. 34(A)/98-ACB New Delhi registered under Sections 120- B/420/468/471 Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no other case pending against him. Inasmuch as the petitioners units are export oriented and the single unit, i.e., Arihant Threads Limited, Goindwal had registered the export of cotton yarn to the European countries to the tune of Rs. 20 crores in the previous year and for this year for sale promotion of export the negotiations with the foreign buyers for securing the orders for export of yarn are required to be made personally by the petitioner and the foreign buyers are pressing hard for early settlement of the negotiations and orders and have fixed the meeting on 23rd June, 2000, failing which the petitioner may lose substantial export orders for his units from Germany and U.K., he needs to go abroad. It is for that reason that the seeks 15 days permission to go abroad. He has undertaken in this application that he would come back within 15 days from the foreign visit in connection with the business transactions of his units. This application has been supported by an affidavit of petitioner.

5. Notice of this application was issued to the Standing Counsel for CBI, Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate, for 19.6.2000. On the aforesaid date, Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate, sought a short adjournment to seek instructions with regard to any serious objection that the respondent may have with regard to petitioner going abroad. The matter was adjourned to 20.6.2000. On the date aforesaid, after hearing arguments at some length, the Court