Crl. M.C. 973/2011

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL.M.C. 973/2011

%

Reserved on: 10^th August, 2011

Decided on: 21^st September, 2011

SURESH NANDA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv. and Mr.

Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., with Mr.

R.N. Karanjawala, Mr. R.K. Handoo,

Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Mr. Shivek

Trehan, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advs.

versus

CBI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for

CBI.

Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

Not Necessary

be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

Yes

in the Digest?

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. The grievance of the Petitioner is the denial of permission to go aboard.

A narration of facts before adverting to the issue in question:

i)

The Petitioner, a citizen of India, settled in United Kingdom, having

NRI status since 1984, ordinarily resided in the United Kingdom upto 2006,

2011:DHC:4868

Crl. M.C. 973/2011

Page 2 of 10

when Cases RC-AC1-2006-A0004 and RC-1 (A)/2006-ACU (V) were

registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Petitioner was

arrayed as an accused and his house and other premises were searched. The

passports of the Petitioner and other family members were seized. The

Petitioner was allowed permission to travel abroad by the learned Special

Judge vide order dated 15^th January, 2007 in the abovementioned RC

numbers. However, on a revision petition filed before this Court, the order

was set aside. On a challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 24^th January, 2008 the order passed by the High Court was set aside,

observing that the right to travel was a fundamental right and the investigating

agency had no power to impound the passport. During the course of hearing,

it was assured on behalf of the CBI that the investigation in the

abovementioned case would be over within six months and the CBI would

have no objection if the Petitioner was allowed to travel abroad, after the

expiry of six months. The passport of the Petitioner was also sought to be

impounded by the competent authority, which order was also challenged and

ultimately this Court disposed of the petition vide its order dated 5^th October,

2010 directing release of passport of the Petitioner forthwith while taking note

of the prayer (c) of the amended writ petition wherein it was stated that the

2011:DHC:4868

Crl. M.C. 973/2011

Page 3 of 10

Petitioner will take the permission of the Trial Court before seeking to travel

abroad on the strength of the passport.

ii)

In the meantime, on 8^th March, 2008 the Petitioner was arrested in case

RC-AC1/2008-A0001. In the said case the Petitioner and his co-accused were

released on bail by this Court vide order dated 29^th April, 2008 with the

stipulation that they are not permitted to leave the country, without the prior

permission of the Court. The Petitioner applied before the learned Special

Judge, CBI on 13^th October, 2010 for permission to travel abroad for two

months. The reply of the CBI to the application was that the investigation in

the instant case was still going on, had reached a crucial stage and was most

likely to be concluded in the next two months. The learned Trial Court

dismissed the application on 25^th October, 2010 on the ground that there was

no urgent necessity to travel at that stage, since the CBI had stated that they

needed two more months to complete the investigation finally, which was at

the crucial stage.

iii)

The Petitioner again applied for permission to travel abroad for a period

of twenty days. The CBI again filed a reply dated 15^th December, 2010

stating that the investigation in the present case was at th