2021 (8) TMI 1254 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking permission of the Court to go abroad and visit Dubai and USA - siphoning of funds - proceeds of crime - attachment of property purchaed in UAE - Sections 120-B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - The charge-sheet has already been presented before the trial Court and upon framing of the charges the trial is likely to commence soon as it is already delayed for a period of about 05 years. In the charge-sheet there are serious allegations against the petitioner and it is the case of the prosecution that a fraud of 300/- crores has been committed by the accused in conspiracy with each other. As per the allegations of the charge-sheet the petitioner Gaurav Kirpal is the Director of M/s. Sai Bhakti Impex Private Limited and proprietor of M/s. Best Exports and is also authorized signatory of M/s. Omkara Worldwide Traders Private Limited and 3 fraudulent buyer s credit were issued showing M/s. Sai Bhakti Impex Private Limited as applicant. As per the accounts of M/s. Sai Bhakti Impex Private Limited M/s. Best Exports and M/s. Omkara Worldwide Traders Private Limited payments were made for bearing the expenses of Air travel tickets of main accused Ashu Mehra and his family members - the allegations against the petitioners are that he is an instrument in siphoning off the funds therefore finding no illegality in the impugned order that the petitioner is involved in serious fraud case amounting to a loss of 300/- crores to Indian Overseas Bank and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has moved an application just to escape facing the trial and may flee from the process of law and in view of the fact that the trial Court has also observed that from the proceeds of the crime the accused have already purchased property in UAE which also stands attached. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Permission to travel abroad declined by the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh.
2. Allegations of fraud amounting to loss of ?300 crores.
3. Dismissal of the petitioner's application to travel abroad.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to set aside the order declining permission to travel abroad, citing involvement in the import-export business of readymade garments and previous travel history. The passport was released earlier, but subsequent applications were declined. The Special Court, PMLA, Chandigarh had granted permission for travel to Dubai and the USA. The petitioner argued that the denial of permission by the CBI Special Court was unjust.

2. The CBI contended that the petitioner, a main accused in a fraud case causing a loss of ?300 crores to the Indian Overseas Bank, might flee the country if allowed to travel. The accused's assets were seized, and there were concerns about potential escape and evasion of legal proceedings. The CBI highlighted the seriousness of the offense and the accused's alleged role in siphoning funds.

3. The Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, dismissed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the lack of clarity in the petitioner's intentions to travel abroad for business purposes. The court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's statements regarding the purpose of travel and highlighted the risk of evasion based on the seriousness of the allegations and the accused's connections to the fraud case. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the denial of permission to travel abroad.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh, to decline the petitioner's request to travel abroad, considering the seriousness of the fraud allegations, concerns about potential evasion of legal proceedings, and lack of clarity in the petitioner's application.