RYAN AUGUSTINE PINTO Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner earlier filed CRM No.M-35002 of 2017 in case FIR No.250 dtd. 8/9/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 IPC, Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2005 and Sec. 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (which was added later on) at Police Station Bhondsi. The investigation of the said case was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The aforesaid FIR was re-registered bearing No.RC 8(S)/2017/SCIII/New Delhi on 22/9/2017. Vide order dtd. 7/10/2017, the petitioner was released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency subject to terms and conditions as envisaged under Sec. 438(2)(i) to (iv) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 21/11/2017 and the following order was passed :-

(2.) The petitioner, in compliance of order dtd. 18/1/2018, deposited the surety. Thereafter, the final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C was filed before this Court. The petitioner sought permission to visit different countries during the period 2015 to 2017. Thereafter, he approached this Court by way of filing CRM No.42602 of 2018 in CRM-M No.35002 of 2017 for modification of order granting bail to the extent of removing the restriction imposed on his travel. Said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail other legal remedies including filing of separate petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition for modification of terms and conditions incorporated in the order granting bail and especially the condition of not leaving country without prior permission of the Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of condition of seeking prior permission to travel abroad affects the personal liberty of the petitioner as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. During investigation, no material has been collected by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner to show his involvement with the alleged commission of offence. Learned senior counsel further submits that in spite of having sufficient long time, the Investigating Agency has not collected any incriminating material against the petitioner. He also submits that the charge sheet was filed in the month of February, 2018 but no specific averment has been made with regard to role of the petitioner. At the last, it has been submitted that further investigation in the case has been kept open under Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C and the result of further investigation is to be submitted to the Court in due course of time. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner has been summoned as a witness and not as an accused. No substantial evidence has been collected for his involvement in the commission of offence. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has to approach the Court repeatedly for seeking permission to travel abroad, which is not only the wastage of time of the Court but the Investigating Agency exercises its discretion to oppose such permission. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a frequent visitor to foreign countries and there is no progress in the investigation. During past, the petitioner has neither misused the concession of permission sought for travelling abroad nor likely to run away from the process of law. The condition of seeking prior permission from the Court to travel abroad is unnecessary and unreasonable restriction resulting into the wastage of precious time of the Court as well as to file a petition frequently by the petitioner.