IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Abhijit Kanti Dam @ Abhijit Kanti Dan, aged about 52 years, S/o Mrinal Kanti Dam, R/o Qr. No.2120, Sector IV/C, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District-

Bokaro … Petitioner -Versus-

Union of India through C.B.I. … Opposite Party -----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate For the CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Advocate -----

10/30.10.2025 Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting-aside the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.-cum-Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with RC 6(S)/2010 registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the petition dated 28.07.2018 filed by the petitioner for release of his passport and the case is pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M.-cum- Special Magistrate, C.B.I., Dhanbad. The prayer is also made to modify the order dated 21.10.2014 passed in A.B.A. No.1520 of 2014 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and he frequently visits outside the India for his medical profession and also for acquiring the minutes of detail in field of medicines for betterment of people at large. He further submits that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case and he has earlier moved before this Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance in Cr.M.P. No.1635 of 2010, which has been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2014. He submits that the accused person including the petitioner have already returned back a sum of Rs.2.25 Crores to the Allahabad Bank and further the Bank has issued ‘No Due Certificate’ and the account also got closed in the Bank and the Bank is not interested to proceed further in the matter. He then submits that the petitioner has filed A.B.A. No.1520 of 2014, which has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2014 with condition that the petitioner will submit his passport in the Court concerned along with other conditions also under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He submits that pursuant to that, the petitioner has deposited his passport and he has been provided privilege of anticipatory bail after fulfilling other conditions imposed by the Court. He next submits that the petitioner has co- operated in the trial from the initial stage and now the case is more than 10 years old and there is no chance of early conclusion of the case and, therefore, right of the petitioner to move outside for his professional advancement as well as personnel requirements could not be denied. He also submits that there is allegation of wrongful gain in the present case to the tune of Rs.1 Crore 80 Lakhs and the amount of Rs.2.25 Crores has already been returned to the Allahabad Bank by the petitioner and the Bank has also issued ‘No Due Certificate’ and in this background, the petitioner has filed a petition before the learned Court for release of the passport, however, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same on the ground that one of the co-accused namely Dilip Kumar Gope is the charge- sheeted witness and he was not appearing before the learned Court and on the ground that the huge amount is involved in the case. He further submits that the said order is not in accordance with law and the right to travel for his medical profession is the fundamental right of the petitioner and that cannot be taken away. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I., reported in 2008 Supreme (SC) 119. He refers paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

“18. In our opinion, even