Delhi High Court: An application was filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking an interim stay on the Look Out Circular (LOC) and permission to travel abroad from 16-08-2024 to 05-09-2024. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that insofar as meeting the son and daughter are concerned, there is no restriction on the children to travel to India, to meet the parents, for this purpose, there is no need for the petitioner, to travel to Dubai. The Court further held that the petitioner’s request to travel abroad was not justified, as there was no compelling reason provided for his presence being indispensable for his son’s admission to the New York Film Academy, and there were no restrictions preventing his children from traveling to India to meet him.
The petitioner is the Director in eight Group Companies and the flow of funds and close connection that was shared between Sahara and the eight corporate entities in which the applicant was a Director. The petitioner’s son is seeking admission to the New York Film Academy, and the presence of the petitioner was deemed crucial for securing this admission. Additionally, the petitioner wished to visit his daughter studying in Dubai. The petitioner argued that the travel restrictions imposed on him were unreasonable and violated his fundamental right to travel abroad under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He claimed that the ongoing restrictions amounted to an abuse of legal process, as he had been cooperating with the investigation and had no intention of fleeing justice. The petitioner initially proposed to travel from 25-05-2024, to 17-06-2024, to assist his children with their higher education, however, due to delays in processing the application, he requested a change in travel dates.
The petitioner’s application for permission to travel was initially denied by an order dated 12-02-2024, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) and Special Judge at Dwarka Court based on the ongoing investigation involving financial irregularities and the petitioner’s close association with the Sahara Group, which was under scrutiny. Despite the petitioner’s assurances of cooperation, previous applications seeking similar permissions had been repeatedly denied, the present application was filed to challenge the refusal and to obtain permission to travel to New York and Dubai for family reasons.
The petitioner provided details of his travel itinerary and argued that the balance of convenience favored granting permission for his travel. The petitioner provided details of his travel itinerary and argued that the balance of convenience favored granting permission for his travel. He emphasized that meeting his children and facilitating his son’s admission were urgent personal needs that justified his request.
In response, the respondent’s Status Report highlighted that the petitioner’s request for travel permission had been denied previously and was without merit. The denial was based on a detailed order by the ASJ, reflecting the serious nature of the ongoing investigation involving significant financial transactions between the petitioner’s companies and the Sahara Group. The respondents argued that the petitioner’s travel might jeopardize the investigation and that the LOCs were backed by adequate administrative and legal authority. It was contended that the petitioner was a high flight risk due to his significant resources and international connections.
Counsel for petitioners argued that the risk of flight should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and not solely on past instances of offenders fleeing the country. The petitioner also argued that the ongoing investigations had not led to any conclusions, and he had been cooperative when questioned.
The Court analyzed the merits of the petitioner’s application in the context of the ongoing investigation and the nature of the financial irregularities involving the Sahara Group. It was noted that while the petitioner had cited personal reasons for travel, including facilitating his son’s admission and visiting his daughter, the justification provided was insufficiently compelling. The Court observed that there were no immediate restrictions on the petitioner’s children traveling to India, and thus the need for the petitioner to travel abroad was not pressing.
Furthermore, the Court considered the potential impact of granting permission on the ongoing investigation. The Special Judge’s earlier decision reflected concerns that allowing the petitioner to travel might disrupt the investigation into complex financial dealings. The Court found that the petitioner had not provided cogent reasons for the urgency of his travel and that previous judgments cited were not directly relevant to the current case.
Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s application lacked merit. It was determined that the petitioner had not sufficiently justified the need for travel given the serious nature of the ongoing investigation and the potential risk of disrupting it. The Court found that the reasons for travel, including personal and family matters, did not outweigh the national interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation. Consequently, the application for an interim stay of the LOC and permission to travel abroad was dismissed. The petitioner’s request to travel was denied and the application was disposed of accordingly.
[Vijay Singh Dogra v. SFIO, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5653, decided on 13-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Murari Tiwari, Ms. Ankita Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Abhishek Tiwari, Ms. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Hemant Shah, Mr. Shivam Khora, Mr. Anuj Gupta, Mr. Hemant Shah & Mr. Vishal Mann, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Mr. Pankaj Mohan, Sr. Prosecutor, Mr. Shriram Tiwary, Govt. Pleader, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Saruabh Triapthi, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Abhay Singh, Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Mr. Akshay Kumar Singh, Ms. Parul Chutani, Mr. Lakshay Singh & Mr. A.S. Muhania, Advocates with Mr. Avanish Saini, Asstt. Director/IO.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
