Full Text
Translation output
CRL. M.C. 760/2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 14, 2019
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: February 14, 2019
CRL.M.C. 760/2019 and Crl.M.A. 3098/2019
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP for CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, SPP for CBI with Mr. Prateek Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
MOIN AKHTAR QURESHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates
Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo and Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
Petitioner has aggrieved by trial court’s order of 1st February, 2019 vide which respondent has been allowed to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹2 Crores.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI draws the attention of this Court to order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure A-4) of co-accused- Pradeep, vide which a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the co-accused-Pradeep to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank
Guarantee of ₹6 Crores and so, it is submitted that on parity basis impugned order deserves to be modified while requiring respondent to furnish FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹6 Crores.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent submits that condition of furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹2 Crores is
2019:DHC:1039
Petitioner has aggrieved by trial court’s order of 1st February, 2019 vide which respondent has been allowed to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹2 Crores.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI draws the attention of this Court to order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure A-4) of co-accused- Pradeep, vide which a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the co-accused-Pradeep to travel abroad upon furnishing of FDR/Bank
Guarantee of ₹6 Crores and so, it is submitted that on parity basis impugned order deserves to be modified while requiring respondent to furnish FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹6 Crores.
On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent submits that condition of furnishing of FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹2 Crores is
2019:DHC:1039
CRL. M.C. 760/2019 unjustified as liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed. It is submitted that respondent has filed an application before the trial court to reduce the
FDR/Bank Guarantee amount from ₹2 Crores to ₹50,00,000/- as on earlier occasions, respondent has travelled abroad while furnishing
FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹50,00,000/-.
Upon hearing, on perusal of impugned order, order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure A-4), reply of respondent and the material on record, I find that respondent was allowed to travel abroad earlier while furnishing FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹50,00,000/- but to maintain parity with co-accused-Pradeep, respondent has to now furnishing FDR/Bank
Guarantee of ₹6 Crores as the case of respondent and co-accused-Pradeep is said to be at par. In the reply filed by respondent it is not stated that respondent is not able to furnish the FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹6 Crores.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it deemed appropriate to put respondent at par with co-accused-Pradeep. Thus, impugned order of
1st February, 2019 is modified to enhance the FDR/Bank Guarantee amount from ₹2 Crores to ₹6 Crores.
With aforesaid modification, this petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of Court Master.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2019 p’ma
2019:DHC:1039
FDR/Bank Guarantee amount from ₹2 Crores to ₹50,00,000/- as on earlier occasions, respondent has travelled abroad while furnishing
FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹50,00,000/-.
Upon hearing, on perusal of impugned order, order of 18th December, 2018 (Annexure A-4), reply of respondent and the material on record, I find that respondent was allowed to travel abroad earlier while furnishing FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹50,00,000/- but to maintain parity with co-accused-Pradeep, respondent has to now furnishing FDR/Bank
Guarantee of ₹6 Crores as the case of respondent and co-accused-Pradeep is said to be at par. In the reply filed by respondent it is not stated that respondent is not able to furnish the FDR/Bank Guarantee of ₹6 Crores.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it deemed appropriate to put respondent at par with co-accused-Pradeep. Thus, impugned order of
1st February, 2019 is modified to enhance the FDR/Bank Guarantee amount from ₹2 Crores to ₹6 Crores.
With aforesaid modification, this petition and application are accordingly disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of Court Master.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2019 p’ma
2019:DHC:1039
JUDGMENT