Prior Permission For Each Foreign Travel, Imposed While Rescinding LOC, Can't Continue Where Accused Was Never Arrested: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a condition, imposed while quashing a look-out circular (LOC), requiring an accused to obtain prior permission for every foreign visit cannot be sustained where the individual was never arrested during investigation, the chargesheet stands filed, cognizance has not been taken and there is no material showing any non-cooperation or default.Justice Ravinder...
The Delhi High Court has held that a condition, imposed while quashing a look-out circular (LOC), requiring an accused to obtain prior permission for every foreign visit cannot be sustained where the individual was never arrested during investigation, the chargesheet stands filed, cognizance has not been taken and there is no material showing any non-cooperation or default.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while modifying the travel restriction imposed on Rajnish Gupta and Nisha Gupta in a CBI case concerning alleged irregularities in a cash-credit facility extended by Punjab National Bank to M/s Skyworld Exim.
The Court replaced the requirement of obtaining prior permission for every foreign trip with a direction requiring both individuals to intimate the Trial Court and the investigating agency of their full travel itinerary, duration of travel, places of stay and contact details at least two weeks before each foreign travel.
The petitioners were not arrested during the investigation. The CBI had filed a chargesheet against Rajnish Gupta on March 31, 2023, under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, followed by a supplementary chargesheet filed against Nisha Gupta on June 23, 2023. Cognizance had not yet been taken and they were never summoned.
An LOC had been issued against the petitioners. However, the Trial Court, by an order dated April 30, 2024, found its continuation unjustified and rescinded it. While doing so, the Trial Court directed that the petitioners could not leave the country without its prior permission.
Before the High Court, Guptas argued that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed without their arrest, cognizance had not been taken and there was no subsisting bail condition restricting their foreign travel.
They argued that the requirement of prior permission for every foreign travel amounted to a continuing restraint on their right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The CBI opposed the pleas, submitting that the restriction was intended to secure the petitioners' availability during the criminal proceedings.
It was argued that the allegations involved serious economic offences and that prior permission was a reasonable safeguard against evasion of the proceedings.
Granting relief to the Guptas, the noted that there was no material on record suggesting any non-cooperation or default on the their part.
It further took note of the Trial Court's finding that the petitioners had joined the investigation and that issuance of the LOC was not justified.
“The continued requirement of obtaining prior permission for every foreign visit, therefore, calls for examination, particularly when there is presently no subsisting bail condition requiring such permission,” the Court said.
It observed that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India and that while restrictions may be imposed where warranted by law and necessary to secure the presence of an accused, such restrictions must be reasonable in connection with that purpose.
“….while rescinding the LOC, there was no occasion with the Trial Court to impose any condition and thus, the requirement of obtaining prior permission for every foreign visit during pendency of the trial, cannot be sustained,” the Court said.
It further held that the continued requirement of prior permission could cause procedural hardship and impose an undue restriction on the petitioners' liberty, particularly when there was no instance of misuse of liberty.
“The continued imposition of the condition requiring prior permission for each travel may cause procedural hardship and undue restriction on the liberty of the petitioner, despite there being no instance of misuse of liberty. Such condition, therefore, cannot be sustained,” Justice Dudeja said.
Accordingly, the Court modified the trial court order and directed the petitioners to intimate the Trial Court and the investigating agency of their complete travel details at least two weeks before each foreign trip.
“At the same time, they shall remain available to participate in the proceedings as and when required and shall not seek adjournment on account of such travel. The other directions contained in order dated 30.04.2024 shall remain unaffected,” the Court said.
Title: RAJNISH GUPTA v. CBI & other connected matter