Full Text
JUDGMENT
PROMILA NANDA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma and
Ms. Megha Kamthan, Advocates.
Yadav, Crime Branch.
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.C. No. 3311/2015
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and order dated 29.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) of the said Court.
2. Vide order dated 09.12.2014, on an application being moved by one of the witness that petitioner shall seek prior permission of the Court before going abroad, accordingly, the learned CMM put the said restrictions upon the petitioner. 2015:DHC:7733
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the same by filing Criminal Revision No.115/2014, however, the same was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide its order dated 29.06.2015.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide order dated 19.12.2011, the petitioner was granted bail without putting any condition. The petitioner was not arrested in this case. On filing the chargesheet, petitioner appeared pursuant to summons received from the Court. The petitioner is around 80 years old and is an ailing lady. She is on wheel-chair and has been exempted from personal appearance before the Court.
5. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. However, she submits that the aforesaid case was registered vide FIR No.246/2010 at Police Station Tilak Marg, New Delhi, on the directions passed by this Court in CS(OS) No.1136/2005 on 04.04.2008, whereby the Crime Branch was directed to register a case and investigate the conspiracy between M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and Vishesh Jain on the documents filed in that case to ascertain whether they were false or genuine.
6. The fact cannot be disputed that liberty of any citizen cannot be curtailed by putting such conditions which becomes obstacle for that person to avail any opportunity. In this case, initially, vide order dated 19.12.2011, the petitioner was granted bail and no condition was imposed upon her. However, on an application being moved by one of the witness, who did not appear before the Court and has not explained as to how he will be prejudiced if the petitioner travels abroad. However, the learned Trial Court has passed the order, which has been confirmed by the learned Revisional Court.
7. In a case bearing Crl. M.C. No.83/2012, titled as G.Vetrivel Sami @ Swami Vs. CBI, decided by this Court on 20.03.2012, it was held as under:-
8. In view of the above discussion and legal position, the order dated 09.12.2014 which has been upheld by the learned Revisional Court is hereby modified to the extent that whenever the petitioner leaves the country, the itinerary of the same alongwith an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) in the form of FDR shall be furnished before the learned Trial Court in advance. She will remain present in Court as and when called upon to do so and shall not ask extension on any ground. After returning from abroad, she shall report the court immediately.
9. It is clarified that the FDR so deposited by the petitioner can be withdrawn by her after she returns from abroad.
10. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of. Crl. M.A.No.11795/2015 (for stay) With the disposal of the petition itself, the instant application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed accordingly.
SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 sb