The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order

dated 02-03-2022 passed in C.C.No.7559 of 2019 by which, the

IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore rejects

the application of the petitioner for release of his passport.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition,

as borne out from the records, are as follows:-

On 26-12-2018 a case is registered against six accused for

offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471

3

of the IPC on a complaint registered by one Vaitheeswaran S,

Group Chief Executive Officer of MEMG International India

Private Limited. After completion of investigation, the police filed

a preliminary charge sheet in C.C.No.7559 of 2019 against five

persons mentioned therein and others for offences punishable

under Sections 120B, 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A,

506, 201 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Later, on

further investigation, the police filed first additional charge sheet

on 14.09.2019 adding accused 6 to 9. At this point in time, the

petitioner was not arrayed as an accused.

3. A further report was made on further investigation and

the police laid a second additional charge sheet on 11-01-2021.

It is here the name of the petitioner figures and is arrayed as

accused No.10. Several proceedings have gone on since then.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings had

preferred Writ Petition No.21035 of 2021 and this Court on

09-12-2021 has stayed all further proceedings in C.C.No.7559 of

2019 against the petitioner. On 20-12-2021 the petitioner was

4

enlarged on bail by imposing two conditions viz., the petitioner

was directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and

furnish such documents of surety.

4. The present case concerns an application made by the

petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport

on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school

at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes

virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the

petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted

in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is

the rejection of the application that is called in question in the

present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with

the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any

other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the

parties.

5. Heard Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel

along with Sri.Srinivas Rao.S.S., learned counsel for petitioner

5

and Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel

for respondent No.2.

6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would

submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending

consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings

in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those

cases, but an independent case of an application, where the

passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police

and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country

and get his son admitted to the school at France.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri S.K.Venkata

Reddy appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de-facto complainant,

by filing elaborate objections, would contend that if the

petitioner is let off, he would run away from the country and

funds which have been misappropriated by the petitioner along

with others would be parked elsewhere, thereby it would become

difficult to secure presence of the petitioner in future, since

6

several proceedings are pending consideration between the

parties. Therefore, the order rejecting release of passport does

not call for any interference.

8. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel

appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

9. I have given my anxious consideration