Allowed

Sri Suresh Agarwalla v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) (Acb)

Gauhati HC8 Dec 2021Crl.Rev.P./160/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court modified bail conditions imposed on a petitioner, a company director, regarding foreign travel. The Court allowed him to travel abroad with prior intimation through counsel instead of obtaining fresh permission every six months, noting the investigation was complete and trial was pending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to travel abroad with prior intimation through counsel, replacing the condition to seek fresh permission every six months.

Sri Suresh Agarwalla Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation… — Bail and Remand | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010086932021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./160/2021

¶6

SRI SURESH AGARWALLA

¶7

S/O LT. MADAN LAL AGARWALLA R/O 54, UNITED HARDWARE AND ELECTRICALS, RAJA MAIDAM ROAD, JORHAT, P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, ASSAM PIN-785001

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) (ACB) REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, CBI

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B C DAS

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN ORDER

¶14

08.12.2021

¶15

Heard Mr B C Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

¶16

The petitioner, herein, is one of the accused in connection with Special Case No. 07/2020, now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam. The petitioner

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

was granted default bail on 22.06.2018, by the learned Special Judge, CBI, in connection with the aforesaid case, with the following conditions:-

¶19

He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission;

¶20

He shall not try to scuttle the course of investigation or win over the witnesses, the IO has examined or is going to examine by means of threat, inducement or promise;

¶21

He shall appear before the IO and assist him in the matter of investigation as and when called for.

¶22

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 362/2018 before this Court for modification of the condition No. 1, mentioned in the order dated 22.06.2018 and this Court vide order dated 01.10.2018 had modified the condition of the bail order dated 22.06.2018, in the following manner:-

¶23

a) Whenever the accused petitioner moves out of the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, he should intimate the same to the learned Special Judge, Assam, indicating therein, as to the place he would leave for and the period of his absence from the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Assam.

¶24

b) When the accused petitioner needs to leave beyond India, he will take permission from the learned Special Judge, Assam, once in every 6 (six) months indicating his travel plan during the whole 6 (six) months’ period beyond India. However, before leaving India to any foreign country, as a onetime measure, he will give bank guarantee of Rs. 50,00, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, which condition has been agreed to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, again came before the Court for relaxation of the condition (b) of the above order dated 01.10.2018. On consideration, this Court on 28.01.2019, vide IA (Crl.) No. 8/2019, had directed that condition (b) referred above will remain the same and there be no change in the said condition, as of now. However,

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

whenever any such contingency arises, where it is impracticable or not possible on the part of the accused-petitioner to comply with the said condition (b), he will approach the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, with an application justifying the reasons thereof and after hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge, Assam, on consideration of the materials available before him as well as considering the real difficulties of the petitioner, on an exceptional case, will be at liberty to relax the said condition (b). In the meantime, when the charge sheet was laid before the trial Court, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 29.01.2021, passed in the aforesaid Special Case, allowed the accused petitioner to remain on previous bail, subject to the conditions that he shall be available during trial and he shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. In the same order, the accused petitioner was allowed to be on representation till further orders, subject to the condition that he shall not dispute identification.

¶28

The petitioner, thereafter, approached the learned trial Court in terms of the directions given by this Court on 01.10.2018, seeking modification/relaxation and/or clarification of the conditions (a) and (b), imposed in the order dated 01.10.2018, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 362/2018. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, had passed the order dated 19.02.2021 and had clarified that the condition mentioned in the bail order dated 29.01.2021, whereby the accused petitioner was allowed to remain on previous bail, would not be in supersession of the earlier bail conditions, but rather would be additional bail conditions, meaning thereby, the earlier bail conditions (a) and (b) passed in the earlier revision petition, are allowed to prevail. In the same order, the learned Court had held that pursuant to the orders dated 28.01.2019 and 01.10.2018, passed by the High Court, the bail condition No. 1, imposed by the learned Court of Special Judge, vide order dated 22.06.2018, had merged into conditions (a) and (b), as stipulated by the High Court in its two orders, narrated above and the Court opined that if the condition No. 1 of the bail order dated 22.06.2018 had to be relaxed, then the conditions (a) and (b) imposed by the Hon’ble

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

High Court on 01.10.2018 and its further modification vide order dated 28.01.2019, have to be altogether removed as well and further held that the same would not be in keeping with the manner/extent of relaxation that can be made by this Court in terms of the order dated 28.01.2019, passed in IA (Crl.) No. 8/2019 and the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before this Court under Section 439 (1) (b)/482 CrPC, if so advised.

¶31

Now, challenging the aforesaid order of rejection as well as the direction given by the learned trial Court that the petitioner can seek appropriate relief before this Court, the petitioner is again before this Court, seeking modification of the aforesaid conditions (a) and (b) of the earlier order dated 01.10.2018, passed by this Court, which was allowed to prevail till now.

¶32

The petitioner, herein, has submitted that he being the Director of Win Power Infra Private Limited, a registered company having its registered office at Guwahati with primary operations having Regional Corporate Office at Jorhat, Assam, he is required to travel extensively in relation to his business affairs, as he had already entered into collateral agreement with different foreign countries, in order to promote trade and commerce of the country, especially in power sector in Assam. For that purpose, he has to travel to the foreign countries like Singapore, UAE, Korea, Vietnam, China, Australia, USA, etc., for the purpose of promoting and importing of different materials/machines equipments etc. Although the petitioner has no any specific travel plan at this stage, but it is submitted that he may be required to visit different places as and when required and all the time, it will be difficult on his part to take permission in every 6 (six) months in terms of the order passed by the Court. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is still ready to face the trial as the charge sheet has been submitted and he is allowed to be represented by the learned engaged counsel in the trial and he may be allowed to go to abroad during the pendency of the trial with proper intimation to the Court (as taking permission would be difficult on his part) and it is also contended that the petitioner has

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

already deposited the bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs in terms of the order dated 01.10.2018, passed by this Court and he will not hamper or tamper the trial in any manner.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, Mr Keyal, has, however, raised objection for relaxation of the bail conditions as it may hamper the trial or it may evade the process of litigation against him and future action of the petitioner cannot be predicted.

¶36

In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been submitted that the possibility of jumping of trial also cannot be denuded and the relaxation of the conditions so imposed by this Court as well as the learned trial Court may entail serious consequences and/or he may evade the trial.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the different orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the High Court, as referred above.

¶38

It is to be noted that the initial order dated 22.06.2018 was passed at the time of investigation, while the investigation was not completed, so certain conditions were imposed. Subsequent thereto, also on 01.10.2018, another condition(s) was imposed by this Court to facilitate the investigation so that the conduct of the accused may not hamper the investigation. Now, obviously, the charge sheet has been filed as on 30.12.2020, before the learned trial Court and in that event, apprehension that the accused petitioner may hamper the investigation is no more. So far as regards the trial is concerned, the learned trial Court has also allowed the petitioner to be represented by the engaged counsel, vide order dated 29.01.2021. However, in the similar order, the learned trial Court has clarified that the condition that has been imposed earlier, would prevail and the same can be interfered into by the High Court itself. Now, the fact to be noted that the petitioner has already deposited the bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lacs before the learned trial Court to ensure his presence, which will, however, remain till

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

completion of the trial and the petitioner will remain under an obligation to renew the same till conclusion of the trial, which will ensure the smooth conclusion of the trial.

¶41

The petitioner is a resident of Assam and his business is at Guwahati as well as in Jorhat and has a role in promoting the trade and commerce of the country and the question of evading of the trial is not apparently made out. The learned trial Court had already allowed him to remain on representation. Now, the fact remains that the petitioner may sometimes have to travel abroad in connection with his business matters. However, it is not a fact that the petitioner has to go every time outside the State, as no travel plan has been submitted till yet. It can also be assumed that there is no certainty as to when the trial will be completed as there are 56 nos. of witnesses in the charge sheet, to be examined, which will obviously take time to conclude the trial. On the other hand, too much leniency cannot also be given to the petitioner to remain outside Assam, all the times and he has to ensure his presence before the Court as and when required by the learned trial Court.

¶42

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the pleadings before this Court and the undertaking of the petitioner that he is ready to face the trial, without hampering the same and agreeable to cooperate with the IO, and when the matter of collection of voice sample may come up for consideration, the conditions (a) and (b) given by this court is modified to the extent as and when occasion arises for a definite period (not obviously for a long period). The petitioner may be permitted to travel abroad, with prior intimation to the Court, through his engaged counsel and the learned trial Court will pass appropriate order(s) in this regard, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶43

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the Criminal Petition stands allowed.

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Sri Suresh Agarwalla v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) (Acb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh Agarwalla v. the Central Bureau of Investigation (Cbi) (Acb)

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

Smti. Janti Sarmah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dipak Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Talim Gogoi Vs the State of Assam

Saumendra Kumar Barua and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Farjul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Utpal Medhi Vs the State of Assam and Anr.