Subhash Sharma Vs Directorate of Enforcement

1 - Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Through- Assistant Director, Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, A-1 Block, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate

¶11

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Order On Board

10/11/2025

2

This petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for modification/deletion of conditions No. III and IV in order dated 21.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5288 of 2022.

¶16

Earlier the petitioner had moved an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail before this Court and this Court granted regular bail vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5288 of 2022.

¶17

While allowing the bail application vide order dated 21.09.2022, this Court imposed the following conditions on the Applicant: “It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed, till final disposal of the trial, on e following further conditions:

¶18

(i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶19

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to the fair and expeditious trial;

¶20

(iii) He shall not leave the headquarters without permission of the concerned trial Court;

¶21

(iv) He shall furnish his original Aadhar Card, Driving Licence, Voter ID Card, current mobile number as also

¶22

3

¶23

the details of his movable and immovable properties before the concerned trial Court;

¶24

(v) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation in the present case has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. The petitioner has complied with all bail conditions imposed earlier and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court. He further submits that the petitioner being a businessman, is required to travel abroad for genuine business purposes, including meetings and contractual obligations. The continued retention of his identity documents is causing serious prejudice to his professional and personal commitments. He next submits that Condition No. (iii) of the bail order dated 21.09.2022, restraining the applicant from leaving the headquarters without prior permission of the learned Trial Court, has become unduly restrictive in view of his consistent compliance with all bail terms. It is, therefore, prayed that the said condition be modified to permit the petitioner to travel abroad upon submitting prior intimation of his travel schedule and duration before the learned Trial Court. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, having deep social roots, and is neither a flight risk nor in a position to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. Moreover, his movable and immovable properties have already been attached

¶26

4

¶27

by the Enforcement Directorate, ensuring his continued presence during trial. Therefore, the petitioner, having no other efficacious remedy, most respectfully prays for the benevolent indulgence of this Court to modify the conditions of bail as prayed for in the interest of justice.

¶28

Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order dated 20.09.2023 passed in CRMP No. 1835 of 2023 in the matter of Aman Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for modification of the bail conditions and submits that the restrictions imposed by this Court at the time of granting bail were necessary and justified to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial and to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the condition restraining the petitioner from leaving the headquarters without prior permission of the Trial Court was imposed after due consideration and serves a reasonable purpose. It is also clear from bail order that the applicant was arrested at Delhi Airport while he was trying to leave India and he was duly produced before the remand Court. Hence, there is no ground for interference or modification of the bail order at this stage.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶31

It is evident that the conditions imposed by this Court while granting regular bail to the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2022

¶32

5

¶33

were intended to ensure his presence during trial and to maintain the sanctity of the judicial process. The restrictions contained in Condition Nos. (iii) and (iv) cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

The petitioner has not shown any substantial change in circumstances warranting modification or deletion of the said conditions. The grounds urged, namely business requirements and professional engagements abroad, do not justify relaxation of restrictions that were consciously imposed by this Court at the time of granting bail.

¶35

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶37

Ruchi

¶38

RUCHI YADAV Digitally signedby RUCHI YADAV

Subhash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Bahadur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxmikant Dwivedi and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash Tamrakar and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rooma Bhaumik Vs State of Chhattisgarh