Sanjay Jain Vs Directorate of Enforcement

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2262/2025

¶4

SANJAY JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Trisha Mittal, Ms. Femitha Fathima, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, SC with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Ms. Ilma Khan and Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 03.04.2025

¶11

CRL.M.A. 10155/2025 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

This application stands disposed of.

¶14

CRL.M.C. 2262/2025

¶15

The present petition has been filed seeking permission to travel abroad to Russia, United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE, Belarus, USA, France, Monaco and any other country between the next four months with effect from 10.05.2025.

¶16

Ms. Trisha Mittal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the filing of the present petition has been necessitated by the fact that this court while granting bail to the petitioner vide order

¶17

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 04/04/2025 at 13:55:41

¶18

dated 07.03.2024 passed in BAIL APP. 3807/2022 had imposed a condition that the petitioner shall not leave the country during the bail period without prior permission of this court.

¶19

She submits that the petitioner needs to travel for business development and exploring new business opportunities (liaison, negotiate and obtain work orders and contracts) with various vendors in the aforesaid countries.

¶20

She submits that similar permission has already been granted by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 22.10.2024 to a co-accused, namely Amarendra Dhari Singh in CT CASE 17/2021. In support of her contention, Ms. Mittal has drawn attention of the court to the said order which has been annexed as Annexure P-9 [page 235] to the present petition.

¶21

She submits that likewise, two other co-accused namely, Ankit Agarwal and Alok Agarwal had also been granted similar permission to travel to various countries vide common order dated 04.07.2023, which is also part of the present petition.

¶22

Ms. Mittal submits that even the petitioner had been granted similar permission by this court to travel abroad on four different occasions and the liberty so granted to the petitioner was never misused by him and he returned to India within time period granted by this court.

¶23

The learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ED opposes the application and submits that the permission being sought this time is for a longer period and the only supporting document regarding visit to Monaco has been annexed. He further submits that application is also opposed for the reason that the brother of the present petitioner is still absconding.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 04/04/2025 at 13:55:41

¶26

I have heard Ms. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, the learned Special Counsel for the respondent/ED.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the petitioner post grant of regular bail, vide order dated 07.03.2024 has been granted permission to travel abroad four times and he has never misused the liberty so granted to him. 10. It is also not a disputed fact that the co-accused Amarendra Dhari Singh, Ankit Agarwal and Alok Agarwal were granted similar permission to travel abroad to various countries in one go and they have also not misused such liberty.

¶28

On a query posed by the court, the learned Special Counsel fairly concedes that when the earlier permission was granted by this court to the petitioner, the same position with regard to the brother of the petitioner being absconder was existing and despite the same, this court had granted the permission to the petitioner to travel abroad.

¶29

In view of the above, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad to Russia, United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE, Belarus, USA, France, Monaco and any other country between the next four months since after 10.05.2025 subject to the following conditions:

¶30

i. The petitioner shall furnish the detailed addresses of the persons from whom he has an invite and whom he intends to meet.

¶31

ii. The petitioner shall furnish the details of air-ticket, stay, where he intends to reside in Russia, United Kingdom, Singapore, UAE, Belarus, USA, France, Monaco and any other country, and his contact number along with itinerary, to the Trial Court. The petitioner before departing from India shall also give a complete itinerary of each trip to the IO concerned at least two days prior to his departure.

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 04/04/2025 at 13:55:41

¶34

iii. The petitioner shall furnish a surety in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of FDR before the Trial Court.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall not alienate any movable or immovable assets belonging to him or to persons related to him, during his period of travel.

¶36

v. The petitioner undertakes that he would strictly abide by the itinerary of each trip he gives to IO concerned.

¶37

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Trial Court for information and compliance.

¶39

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶40

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶41

APRIL 3, 2025 /vd/ak

¶42

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 04/04/2025 at 13:55:41

Sanjay Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Virender Mohan Vs State (Govt. NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Mohit @ Baba Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Deepak @ Faizal Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Vineet Gupta Vs M/S Icici Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Mr. Prabhat Rathore @ Biru & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.