SUMIT CHAKRABARTI vs THE STATE
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 19.12.2023
Pronounced on: 03.01.2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 863/2016
SUMIT CHAKRABARTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
CRL.M.A. 25845/2023 (for modification of order dated 13.06.2016)
1. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of petitioner, seeking modification of order dated 13.06.2016, passed by this Court in the present bail application.
2. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 13.06.2021.
3. By way of present application, it is submitted that this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 13.06.2016, had imposed certain conditions on the petitioner such as the condition to not leave the country and to surrender his passport with the Investigation Officer. It is stated that in compliance of the said order, the petitioner had deposited his original passport with the Investigation Officer concerned, and the same is still lying with the IO.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is working as Chief Technical Marketing in a company and as a part of service, he is required to visit abroad frequently to impart training to the doctors and technicians, being a specialist in the field of pace makers. It is argued that due to service exigencies, the petitioner requires to visit various countries frequently, however, due to the condition imposed vide order dated 13.06.2016 that he shall not leave the country without permission of the Court, the petitioner has to suffer great hardships. It is stated that each time the petitioner has to travel abroad, he has to file an application, which is then verified by the Court and Court further imposes conditions such as furnishing an FDR, getting released his passport from the Investigating Officer, etc. It is submitted that this process takes a long time, besides being cumbersome and sometimes in fulfilling the conditions, the petitioner is even forced to re-schedule his foreign visits. Therefore, it is prayed that condition imposed vide order dated 13.06.2016 i.e. not to leave the country, be modified.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the present application and argues that merely because the condition imposed is found inconvenient by the petitioner, the same cannot be modified, as it may affect the progress of trial. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the condition impugned was imposed by this Court considering the overall facts of the case. Therefore, is prayed that present petition be dismissed as there is no ground for modification of condition so imposed vide order dated 13.06.2016.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed the learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned APP for the State, and has perused material on record.
7. In the present case, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2016. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State and on instructions of Sub-Inspector Sangeeta, submits that the petitioner is not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation, however he is required for the purpose of investigation.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called and to cooperate in the investigation of the present case. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner- Sumit Chakrabarti be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
Petitioner is also directed not to leave the country and is directed to surrender his passport with the Investigating Officer.
With aforesaid directions, the present petitioner is disposed of…
8. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the aforesaid order, on the ground that the order did not mention that petitioner can obtain permission from the learned Trial Court to travel abroad. Accordingly, vide order dated 23.09.2016, this Court had modified the order dated 13.06.2016, to the extent as under:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court for permission to travel abroad. Since the permission to travel abroad does not reflect in the impugned order, it needs modification.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, order dated 13.06.2016 is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be at liberty to go abroad with the prior-permission of the Trial Court. Other terms and conditions of the order are left undisturbed…
9. In this Courts opinion, this Court while granting anticipatory bail in this case, had taken note of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and in its wisdom, had imposed condition that the petitioner would surrender his passport and not to leave the country, and had later modified the same to the extent that in case he would wish to visit another country, prior permission of the Trial Court will be obtained. Thus, the condition to require judicial permission before travelling abroad has been imposed by this Court while granting bail, considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that present case has been registered under Section 376 of IPC. Such condition is also important for securing the presence of the petitioner during the course of trial and also to ensure that the petitioner is not able to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
10. In this regard, this Court also takes note of the observations of Honble Apex Court in case of Barun Chandra Thakur v. Ryan Augustine Pinto 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1899, wherein it was observed as under:
9. …There could be no gainsaying to that the right to travel abroad is a valuable one and an integral part of the right to personal liberty. Equally, however, the pre-condition of securing prior permission before travelling abroad is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail in this case…
11. However, while observing so, this Court also remains aware of the fact that the anticipatory bail in this case was granted in the year 2016 i.e. about seven years ago. A perusal of record reveals that the petitioner has been granted permission to travel abroad, on account of his service exigencies, on several occasions vide orders dated 03.10.2016,01.03.2017, 05.12.2017, 07.10.2017, 14.09.2021, 15.03.2023,05.07.2022 and 22.05.2023, and he has never misused the said liberty.
12. One of the grievance, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, was that the petitioner is required to get his passport released from the investigating officer every time he has to travel abroad and then has to surrender the same when he returns to India, which consumes significant time. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 13.06.2016, only to the extent that the petitioner will not be required to deposit his passport with the investigating officer, but he shall be bound to obtain prior permission of the learned Trial Court before travelling abroad.
13. Accordingly, in above terms, the present application stands disposed of.
14. It is however clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
15. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 3, 2024/zp
BAIL APPLN. 863/2016 Page 1 of 6