IN THE COURT OF THE LD. ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
CBIVERSUS Applicant/accused's name
FIR NO. RCFIR number (RC number)
U/S: 420/471/168 OF IPC
P.S.: CBI, SC-I, NEW DELHI
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED, Applicant/accused's name, FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LOOK-OUT CIRCULAR (LOC) OPENED / ISSUED AGAINST THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. FIR number, Police station or CBI branch name, DELHI.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the aforesaid case is pending before this Hon'ble Court, and the chargesheet has already been filed in the aforesaid FIR against the applicant / accused.
2.That there exists no basis for the issuance of the LOC against the applicant / accused. It is pertinent to mention that notice under Section 41A of the CrPC was served upon the applicant / accused through WhatsApp or email, and the applicant / accused duly replied / responded to the same to the Investigating Officer who issued the notice. The issuance of the LOC against the applicant / accused is itself bad in law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The LOC, if any, pending against the applicant / accused is also contrary to the objective for which an LOC may be issued.
3.That the issuance of the LOC pending against the applicant / accused violates the rights of the accused under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, which include, amongst others, the right to hold a passport and the right to travel.
4.That the applicant / accused is a businessman and is associated with several domestic and international forums for the promotion of economic relations amongst various countries across the globe, which constitutes his source of earning and livelihood. In the course of business, the applicant / accused is required to frequently travel outside India. It is submitted that the applicant / accused has neither absconded from any proceeding nor from any investigation, has always responded to the letters / notices of the Investigating Officer as and when served upon him, and has always remained available to join the investigation.
5.That the applicant / accused has been fully cooperating with the investigating agency and has appeared before it whenever required, and has always responded to its notices / letters.
6.That the grounds on which the LOC was issued no longer subsist, as the investigation stands completed and the chargesheet has already been filed before this Hon'ble Court. There is no need for any further investigation in the matter, and nothing incriminating was found against the applicant / accused by the investigating officer.
7.That the applicant / accused is not a flight risk and has strong ties to the community, as is demonstrated by the fact that his family is dependent upon him and that he, being an ex-public servant, has accountability towards the nation. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant / accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, and it is a clear case of vendetta, inasmuch as the wife of the applicant / accused has implicated him in the present case on account of their matrimonial dispute, and multiple litigations are pending between them.
8.The applicant / accused therefore prays for cancellation of the Look-Out Circular, as prayed in the main application, and consequently prays that the applicant / accused be permitted to travel abroad in order to attend an important business meeting.
9.The issuance of the LOC is causing grave prejudice to the applicant / accused. It is relevant to mention that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and cannot be restrained without any basis in law.
10.That in various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is a matter of constitutional right to go abroad. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, held that:
“Even if the power to impound the passport were regarded as administrative in character, because it seriously interferes with the constitutional right of the holder of the passport to go abroad and entails adverse civil consequences.”
11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India, 2019 (2) SCT 741 (SC), also held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right of great significance. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, which are as follows: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.””
12.It is submitted that the liberty of a person is his fundamental right, and the same cannot be violated by the Investigating Officer by resorting to the illegal action of issuance of an LOC without being authorised under law to do so. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, wherein it has been held that:
“…under Article 21 the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable through which life or personal liberty is taken away. If this is permitted to be done, then it will be simply putting a premium on the inaptness or callous attitude of the Investigating Agency and also working to the detriment of the fundamental right of an under trial who may be enlarged on bail. The purpose of imposition of such a condition, as has already been stated hereinbefore, is to ensure that the accused must submit herself to the processes of law. The said purpose can be secured by modifying the said condition of surrendering the passport and obtaining the permission from the Court by requiring the accused to either furnish some title deed of an immovable property to the Court to ensure that she does not flee from the processes of law or by imposing some additional conditions.
9. The Petitioner in the instant case has categorically stated that she has interest in immovable property at Delhi as well as at Goa, therefore I feel that the interest of the Investigating Agency can be secured by ensuring that she makes herself available during the course of the trial by requiring her to file an undertaking that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or trial.
_10.For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the prayer of the Petitioner for waiving the condition of surrendering her passport and obtaining the permission from the competent court in terms of the order dated 21st August, 2009 is working very onerous on the Petitioner restricting her freedom of movement and her right to travel abroad as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in view of the fact that already 3½ years have elapsed and yet the Investigating Agency has not filed the final report. Accordingly, the said condition is dispensed with, however the Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking in writing to the Registrar General of this Court that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or the trial as and when she is required, apart from furnishing itinerary of her travel abroad to the IO, including the place where she is likely to stay and the countries she proposes to visit and the date of departure and the date of return. This condition will be deemed to have been incorporated as a condition of the bail till the charge sheet is filed and after the charge sheet is filed, she would ensure that the trial of the case shall not be adjourned or deferred on the ground that she is undertaking to travel abroad.”_
13.That this Hon'ble High Court, recently, in Writ Petition bearing No. Writ petition number titled Jayant Nanda v. Union of India, allowed the applicant's civil miscellaneous application seeking permission to travel abroad on a business tour to Countries for the business tour during the pendency of the Writ Petition, against a look-out circular.
14.That this Hon'ble High Court, vide Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P.C 12169/2021 titled as Manan Goel vs. Union of India and Ors, permitted the applicant / accused to travel abroad for eight weeks to Germany, Switzerland and the UK by suspending the Look Out Circular issued against him at the behest of Bank of Baroda.
15.That the applicant / accused has deep roots in society and commands respect in social circles. Therefore, there is no chance of the applicant / accused absconding or fleeing from the country, or of hampering the course of investigation in any manner. Under these circumstances, the applicant / accused prays before this Hon'ble Court to allow the present application for cancellation of the Look Out Circular and to grant permission to travel abroad in order to attend important business meetings and for other such purposes.
16.That it is humbly submitted that, upon the present application being allowed by this Hon'ble Court, the applicant / accused shall file an affidavit disclosing the detailed itinerary of his trip and the details of his stay during the trip, together with an undertaking that the applicant / accused will not seek any extension of his stay and that his counsel will remain present before this Hon'ble Court in the event of any proceedings during the said period.
17.That the applicant / accused undertakes that he will not dispute his identity in any proceedings, if any, conducted in his absence, and the applicant / accused has instructed his counsel to appear before this Hon'ble Court, to assist this Hon'ble Court in every manner possible, and not to delay the proceedings in case of his absence.
18.That the applicant / accused will suffer grave harm, irreparable loss and injury in case the present application is not allowed. On the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent, i.e., the CBI, if the present application is allowed and permission to travel abroad is granted to the applicant / accused.
19.That the present application is being filed bona fide and in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
A.Pass such orders and directions as may be necessary, thereby allowing the present application, cancelling the Look Out Circular and permitting the applicant / accused to travel abroad / outside India freely with the permission of this Hon'ble Court;
AND
B.Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to meet the ends of justice.
APPLICANT / ACCUSED
Through
Place: Place of filing
Dated: Date of filing
Advocate's name
ADVOCATE
Advocate's address
Mob. No.: Advocate's mobile number
Email: Advocate's email address