JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner seeks setting aside of common order dated 08.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, and FIR No. 208/2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell (EOW) under Sections 419/420/120B/384/386 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 3/4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (‘MCOCA’).

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ vide order dated 08.07.2023 had dismissed the application filed by him seeking permission to travel abroad to Dubai for 30 days for appointing a responsible person to look after his business, and prays that the impugned order be set aside and he be granted the permission to travel aboard for the said purpose.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present case, the petitioner himself had travelled back to India to join investigation out of his own free will. It is argued that the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were dropped against him by the learned ASJ vide order dated 10.04.2023 and he was granted anticipatory bail on Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5012/2023 & connected matter Page 2 of 11 Digitally Signed

20.04.2023 while he was still in Dubai, UAE. It is also stated that the Look-Out Circular (‘LOC’) opened against the petitioner by the State/EOW was cancelled by the learned ASJ vide order dated 26.04.2023. It is submitted that after the petitioner had returned to India and joined investigation in present FIR, he was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 01.05.2023 and in the said ECIR also, he was released on regular bail vide order dated 08.06.2023 by the learned ASJ. It is argued that right to travel abroad is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and refusal to allow the petitioner to travel abroad for business purposes amounts to deprivation of personal liberty of the petitioner who is already enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that he has placed on record all the relevant documents regarding the permanent address of the petitioner as well as his business in Dubai to which he wants to attend to, and therefore, it is prayed that present petitions be allowed and petitioner be granted permission to travel to Dubai for a period of 30 days.

4. Vehemently opposing the present petitions, learned Special Counsel for Directorate of Enforcement states that an LOC already stands opened by the ED as well as the Income Tax Department which has not been cancelled yet. It is argued that the petitioner is an international hawala operator based in Dubai and he had aided the main accused Sukash Chandrashekhar in transferring an amount of Rs. 24 crore to Dubai. It is stated that petitioner has no roots in India and is a flight risk, and that the application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein is pending adjudication and is Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5012/2023 & connected matter Page 3 of 11 Digitally Signed listed for 09.01.2024. It is also argued that the learned ASJ has passed a reasoned order discussing therein that the petitioner had not provided his permanent address or the details regarding his business or jewellery there, therefore, the Court has rightly rejected his application for grant of permission to travel abroad.

5. Learned ASC for the State also argued that investigation is still pending against the present accused/petitioner in the present FIR. It is also stated that the major son of the petitioner is already a Director in the company of the petitioner and is looking after the business, and the petitioner has not provided any specific reasons for which he needs to travel abroad. It is also stated that on 14.04.2023, the lease/tenancy pertaining to the residence of the