4.The investigating agency contends that while seeking anticipatory bail, by filing Crl.OP.Nos.9589, 9590, 9828, 9829, 9830, 9831, 9832, 9833 and 9834 of 2017, the respondent/2nd accused represented on Oath that his passport has already been seized by the officials of Enforcement Directorate. However, while entertaining the said petitions granting anticipatory bail, this Court imposed the condition that the accused shall surrender his passport before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for CBI cases at Chennai, if not already surrender in any other case. While the accused surrendered before the said Court on 23.06.2017, it was represented on Ooth that Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai had seized his passport on 17.07.2015. However, no proof was produced by the accused about his surrendering of passport. Accordingly, the surrender petition filed by the accused was returned by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, CBI Cases, Chennai. Subsequently, the accused filed the modification petition before this Court seeking modification of conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail on 14.06.2017. In the modification petition, the accused stated on Ooth that the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai had seized his passport on 17.07.2015 and the passport is not in his custody. The same was verified by Enforcement Directorate authorities and by letter dated 29.06.2017, the Directorate of Enforcement Chennai, denied the seizure of passport of the accused herein. The Director also informed that the accused submitted only photo copy of his passport No.L1035390 and informed about the loss of his original passport. The Director of Enforcement by subsequent letter dated 07.07.2017 confirmed that the accused never surrendered his passport bearing No.N1400850 issued on 17.07.2015. Thus, according to the investigating agency/the petitioner herein, false statement has been made by the accused before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for CBI Cases, Chennai as well as before this Court that his passport had been seized by Enforcement Directorate. The accused knowingly has made such false representation with the intention of retaining his passport with him, so that he can make use of it to abscond from this country. It is contended by the petitioner that having made false representation before the two Judicial Forums, the accused is deliberately trying to escape from the judicial process by going away from this Country. Thus, the investigating agency seeks to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused by common order dated 14.06.2017 passed in Crl.O.P.Ns.9589, 9590, 9828, 9829, 9830, 9831, 9832, 9833 and 9834 of 2017.
