Allowed

Sai Chandrasekhar v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC28 Aug 2024CRL.M.C./5335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order challenged a Special Judge's refusal to grant travel permission abroad to a petitioner facing serious EOW and enforcement trials. The court declined the exemption to visit the UK, noting the petitioner's serious allegations and the absconding of co-accused, while keeping specific contentions open for future consideration.

What did the court decide?

The petitions challenging the refusal of travel permission stand allowed as an exemption subject to just exceptions, but the petitions themselves are disposed of after permission to travel abroad is d

Sai Chandrasekhar Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~35 & 36

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5335/2024 SAI CHANDRASEKHAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Pranav Diesh, Mr. Kartik Venu, Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Mr. Paras Nath Mishra, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Retainer counsel, Mr. Ashish Ranjan, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Ms. Abhipriya, Advs. 36 + CRL.M.C. 5344/2024 SAI CHANDRASEKHAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Mr. Pranav Diesh, Mr. Kartik Venu, Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Mr. Paras Nath Mishra, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for State and Insp. Ashwani K., PS EOW. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 15:25:24

¶5

% 28.08.2024

¶6

CRL.M.A. 20433/2024 in CRL.M.C. 5344/2024

¶7

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

Application stands disposed of.

¶9

CRL.M.C. 5335/2024 & CRL.M.C. 5344/2024

¶10

The present petitions have been filed under Section 528 BNSS challenging the order dated 05.07.2024, passed by Ld. Special Judge (NDPS/AS) Saket District Courts (South), whereby the learned Sessions Judge has declined the application of the petitioner seeking permission to travel abroad and consequent directions allowing the petitioner to travel abroad to the United Kingdom from 14.08.2024 till 14.10.2024 and directions for releasing passport No. 517928203, expiring on 12.10.2015 as well as OCI Card No. A2072543, belonging to the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied to travel abroad for the reason that the petitioner’s daughter’s education is at a crucial juncture, and it is necessary for the petitioner to be present there to complete formalities for her admission in the university in the United Kingdom. Learned counsel submits that earlier also in the year 2018 petitioner was granted permission to travel abroad to Colombo, Sri Lanka for a period of one week and the same was not misused by the petitioner in any manner. Learned counsel submits that unfortunately the wife of the petitioner has expired who was a British citizen. Learned counsel submits that the visit of the petitioner is also necessitated to complete the formalities regarding the release of pension of his deceased wife. Learned counsel submits that some

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 15:25:24

¶14

formalities are also required to be completed regarding the insurance policy of the deceased wife of the petitioner.

¶15

Learned Special counsel for ED and learned APP for the State has opposed the petitions on the ground that the petitioner is holding a British Passport and is involved in serious cases registered by the EOW and the Enforcement Directorate. It has been submitted that earlier in the year 2018 when the permission was granted to the petitioner to travel abroad to Colombo, Sri Lanka for a period of one week, the circumstances were different. It has been submitted that at that time the wife of the petitioner and daughter were in the country and therefore there was lesser possibility of petitioner not coming back to India. It has been submitted that now the wife of the petitioner has expired and the daughter who is also a British citizen has gone to United Kingdom. Hence, the petitioner in all likelihood will not come back to India. It has also been submitted that two other accused are also absconding.

¶16

I have considered the submissions. There is no doubt in the mind of the court that the permission to travel is one of the facets of fundamental right and can be curtailed only in the exceptional circumstances. The petitioner herein is facing trial in the EOW case as well as the case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The allegations made in the complaint are quite serious in nature. Allegedly, the petitioner is involved in an offence relating to inducing one M/s Hassad Netherelands BV to provide 70% bank guarantee of the loan amount of Rs. 750 crores taken by the accused company M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. from the Bank of India consortium on the basis of various misrepresentations, non-existent stock/inventory etc. in conspiracy with Vinod Sirohi,

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 15:25:24

¶19

Virkaran Awasthy and Ritika Awasthy. It is a matter of record that coaccused Virkaran Awasthy and Ritika Awasthy are absconding. It has also been alleged the proceeds of crime of about Rs. 20.97 crores have been transferred to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact it was a inter se dispute between the directors of the company. However, the plea cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner keeping in view the overall case against the petitioner.

¶21

I consider, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the permission to travel abroad to United Kingdom cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, all the contentions of the petitioner are left open to be taken up at an appropriate stage to be considered in accordance with law.

¶22

In view of the discussion made herein above, the present petitions stand disposed of.

¶23

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J

¶24

AUGUST 28, 2024/ AR/KR..

¶25

Sai Chandrasekhar v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Chandrasekhar v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amanpreeet Singh and Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Preeti & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Kamal Kishore @ Lalaji Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kusum Vs State Govt. of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Yogender Singh & Ors. Vs State N.C.T of Delhi & Anr.