2017 (2) TMI 811 - HC - Indian Laws

Granting permission to the respondent to travel Germany - Held that - What is emerging on record is that the respondent sought permission to go abroad. Mr. Frank Thierfelder, German Counsellor and Consul filed a certificate on 19.12.2016 affirming the plea of the respondent that he is a citizen of Germany and his presence can be secured. The respondent was granted permission to go abroad vide order dated 20.12.2016 subject to deposit of ₹ 15,00,000/- by way of demand draft/bankers cheque/FDR. In compliance of order dated 20.12.2016, the respondent furnished demand draft for a sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- which was accepted by the learned CMM, New Delhi on 21.12.2016. To our mind, Mr. Frank Thierfelder, German Counsellor and Consul is the appropriate guarantor in the present facts of the case, who can assure the presence of respondent. Therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Court below.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders granting permission to travel abroad and releasing passport.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned orders dated 20th December, 2016 and 21st December, 2016, passed by the learned CMM, New Delhi, in a case involving permission to travel abroad. The petitioner argued that the orders were bad in law, expressing apprehension that the respondent might not return to India to face trial. The respondent had sought permission to travel to Germany, which was granted subject to depositing a sum of ?15,00,000. The respondent complied with this condition by furnishing a demand draft. The German Counsellor and Consul provided a certificate affirming the respondent's citizenship and guaranteeing his presence. The court found the Consular Certificate to be credible and concluded that the German official was a suitable guarantor for the respondent's return. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned orders and finding them legally sound.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent's travel permission and passport release were unjust, emphasizing the risk of the respondent not returning to face trial. In contrast, the respondent's counsel defended the travel request, highlighting the respondent's societal ties, knowledge of Indian culture, and willingness to comply with court directions. The court examined the Consular Certificate provided by the German official, which assured the respondent's cooperation and compliance with any court orders. The court noted that the bail order treated the offense as bailable, emphasizing that restrictions on travel could not be imposed under such circumstances. Ultimately, the court granted permission for the respondent to travel to Germany for two months, subject to depositing ?15,00,000, to be forfeited in case of default. The court found the Consular Certificate to be a reliable guarantee for the respondent's return, thereby affirming the lower court's decision to allow the travel.

In the judgment, the court detailed the circumstances surrounding the respondent's request to travel abroad and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court highlighted the submission of the Consular Certificate by the German official, which played a crucial role in assuring the respondent's presence and compliance. The court emphasized the importance of the official document in establishing the respondent's credibility and guaranteeing his return. By accepting the certificate as a valid assurance, the court found no fault in the lower court's decision to grant travel permission and release the passport. The court concluded that the Consular Certificate provided sufficient assurance of the respondent's commitment to return, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned orders.