ASHISH MAHAVIR TAWAKLEY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by preferring this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short "Cr.P.C.") and under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought for quashing of the Look-Out Circular opened in the name of the petitioner, on account of which the petitioner has been disallowed from travelling abroad.

(2.) It has been submitted that the petitioner was travelling to Dubai on 14th April, 2021, from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, wherein he has been stopped by the Immigration of ficers at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, and was informed that a Look-Out Circular has been opened in his name by the respondent No.3 - Union of India. It is contended by the petitioner that he has been named as an accused in FIR bearing No. RC0292020A0007 of 2020 dated 8th July, 2020, registered with CBI, ACB Gandhinagar - respondent No.2 herein. The FIR is registered in furtherance of a complaint filed by Deputy General Manager, Bank of India, Large Corporate Branch, Ahmedabad, on 10 th January, 2019, against a company viz. Chem-Edge International Private Limited (for short "Chem-Edge") with respect to some credit facilities taken by Chem-Edge and the petitioner is also arraigned as an accused simply because the petitioner was a Director of Chem-Edge from 2011 to 2015. It is contended by the petitioner that no specific allegations made against the petitioner with respect to his role or involvement in the offences. The petitioner states that he has no nexus with the allegations made in the FIR, and therefore, he states that he is compelled to move this court by way of present petition.

(3.) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.4 - Shri Vivekanand, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Paramsiddhi Complex, 2nd Floor, Opp. V.S. Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. The respondent No.4 bank contends that the petition is premature as the investigation in the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused persons is in vogue and yet to be concluded. The respondent No.4 bank contends that the offences alleged against the petitioner are being serious in nature; the petitioner cannot be permitted to travel back to Dubai. The respondent No.4-bank contends that the petitioner is involved in serious offences and is involved in defrauding the banks and the petitioner and other co-accused persons have caused wrongful pecuniary loss to the consortium banks and the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature which deals with siphoning of public funds. The respondent No.4- bank contends that the petitioner poses a 'flight risk' given the fact that he has specifically averred in the petition as well as in the criminal misc. application that he is largely based out of Dubai for the past 13 years and that he has no professional obligations in India.