SANJAY RELAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RC 10(S)/2001/SIU-1/SIC-1/New Delhi was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short `CBI') involving theft of 10 Indian Airlines tickets worth Rs.1,80,000/-. The petitioner allegedly conspired with the principal accused in the commission of the offence. The petitioner first obtained an anticipatory bail and has thereafter obtained regular bail. The bail order passed by this court dated 7.1.2005 directs release of the petitioner on a bond of Rs.1 lakh with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that the passport impounded by the CBI shall remain in the custody of the CBI and the petitioner should not leave the territory of NCR without the permission of the concerned court and the petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. The petitioner seeks permission to go to China where he has a business. The prayer is opposed by the CBI. The trial court declined the permission to go abroad, so has the court of Sessions. Hence the present petition.

(2.) It is contended by the CBI that the presence of the petitioner in India has been obtained with great difficulty and there is every likelihood that he will run away from the country if he is allowed to leave India. Further it is submitted that the petitioner has obtained his passport by deceit and he cannot be allowed to travel on that very passport. The CBI apprehends that the petitioner will abscond because three co- accused in this case, namely, the wife of the petitioner (Naiya Relan), Prakash Nair and Rakesh Kumar are absconding. Seven cases against the petitioner are listed by the CBI.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted permission to go to China vide an order of this court dated 26.7.2004 and at that time all the objections now raised were available to the CBI. So far as the question of deceit in obtaining the passport is concerned, suffice it to say that no FIR under the PASSPORTS ACT, 1967 has been registered against the petitioner and no order withdrawing the passport has been passed. The passport still is a valid document.