The seriousness of the allegations and the risk of the accused fleeing from the country can be grounds for denying travel permission in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan J. (Oral). - Prayer in this petition is for setting-aside the order dated 04.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, in FIR No. RCBDl /2016/E/0007 dated 08.08.2016 registered under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI, BS&FC, Chandigarh, vide which the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission of the Court to go abroad and visit Dubai and USA was declined.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in the business of import and export of readymade garments and the FIR was registered on a complaint given by the Indian Overseas Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi, to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the fraud committed by Assistant Manager, Forex Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 7, Chandigarh along with other accused including the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was a frequent traveller to various countries in connection with his business of readymade garments and till 2016, he was visiting abroad and on 10.08.2016, when he was going to Dubai, he was stopped at the Immigration deck of IGI Airport, New Delhi on the basis of the restrictions imposed by the CBI.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the passport of the petitioner was released by the Court on 16.11.2017. It is further argued that the petitioner on an earlier occasion has filed application before the Special Court, CBI to grant permission to travel abroad, which was declined vide order dated 07.02.2019 and the petitioner preferred CRM-M No. 7910 of 2019, which was later on withdrawn on 28.07.2021, with liberty to apply fresh before the trial Court. It is further argued that in the intervening period, the Special Court, PMLA, Chandigarh has granted permission to the petitioner to travel abroad i.e. Dubai and USA, vide order dated 08.02.2019. Counsel for the petitioner has, thus, prayed that the CBI, Special Court, CBI, Chandigarh has wrongly declined the prayer to allow him to travel abroad.

5. Reply on behalf of the CBI, was filed before the Court, in the first application, which is relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure P-8 and in para 9-F, it was submitted that all the immovable and movable assets of the petitioner were seized by the Indian Overseas Bank and total of theses properties is Rs. 12.35 crores as the business of the petitioner in India is not going well, there is every possibility that the petitioner may flee from the country and would never come back to India to face the legal action.

6. The trial Court, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.08.2021, dismissed the application by passing the following order:-

"5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that earlier also similar applications had been filed by the applicant and while the CBI court had dismissed his application, the PMLA court had allowed his application. Against the dismissal of application by the CBI Court, a revision had been filed, but withdrawn with the right to contest the application before the Trial Court. It was argued that the applicant needs to go abroad to conduct his business and recover his money and do new business dealings. He has even now filed his schedule of travel whereby he needs to go to Dubai for six days and USA for fourteen days. It was further argued that it is the right of the applicant/accused to travel abroad and this right cannot be curtailed. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the principle laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case titled Sri Amarendra Nath Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal and another, C.R.R. No. 2199 of 2013, decided on 04.12.2013 and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled Ryan Augustine Pinto vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, CRM-MNo. 55170 of 2018 decided on 22.02.2019.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor