9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a direction to the ED to coordinate with the immigration authorities (4) Modify the orders dated 14.01.2022 & 05.03.2022 and the applicant may be permitted to travel to any country without limitation. (5) Pending disposal of the present application, as an ad interim order, it may be directed that the LOC (as suspended in terms of the orders stated above) may be suspended against the applicant. (6) Pending disposal of the present applicant, as and ad-interim order, the applicant may be permitted to travel to any country without limitation. Brief History:- 2. The applicant is being interrogated in relation to the investigation of ECIR/09/HIU/2019. The applicant received summons dated 08.01.2020 from Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant is a citizen of India however he is a permanent resident of Dubai, UAE. His family is already living in Dubai. The applicant has businesses in Dubai as well as Iran (where he was born). The applicant used to visit India rarely for short periods. 2.1 The applicant voluntarily visited India and arrived at Mumbai Airport on 14.10.2021. He was detained at the airport. He was served summons requiring him to join investigation at the office of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ongoing investigation. In para no. 7.2 of the reply excerpts of office memorandum No. 25076/31/2010.Imm dated 27.10.2010 of Ministry of Home Affairs are given. It is stated that LOCs are issued for keeping a watch on arrival and departure of Indians and foreigners and a watch will be maintained by the person concerned at the immigration check posts only for that period (SIC). 3.5 The applicant is the subject of investigation into the offence of Money Laundering, keeping watch over the movements of the applicant, without unduly restricting his personal liberty is essential for the present investigation pertaining to the offence of Money Laundering. ARGUMENTS:- 4. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has always joined investigation. Ld. Counsel for the applicant narrated the previous conduct of the applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant has always complied with the court orders. He has always returned after traveling. At page no. 93 of paper book is the notice dated 06.04.2022 given to the applicant. In this notice he was given liberty to either appear in person or through authorized representative. The bonafide of the applicant is cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant relied upon the judgment "Sumer Singh Salkan & Ors. Vs. Asstt. Director & Ors." W.P. (Crl.) No. 1315/2008 & Crl. Ref. No. 01/2006 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 11.08.2010. It was stated that in this judgment in para no. 11 the questions of the references were answered. It was answered that the LOC is a coercive measure which is akin to NBW which is purely for the purpose of securing presence of the accused. In "Satish Babu Sana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation", W. P. (Crl.) 249/2019 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 28.01.2022. The Hon'ble High Court observed that though in the reply filed by the respondent (CBI) it was claimed that the applicant / petitioner was an accused however till date he was neither arrested nor any charge-sheet filed against the petitioner. The respondent i.e CBI was directed to recall its request for opening the LOC against the petitioner. In "Rana Ayyub Vs. Union of India & Anr." W. P. (Crl.) 714/2022 decided by the Hon'ble High Court on 04.04.2022 again it was held that LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with a petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 14.01.2022 and 05.03.2022 and permitting the applicant to travel to any country apart from Dubai, UAE & Iran. PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE OF LOC:- 5.1 The issuance of LOC is governed by letter no. 25022/13/78-F.1 dated 05.09.1979 and OM. No. 25022/20/98-F.IV dated 27.12.2000 Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed copy of this office memorandum (latest modified on 27.10.2010). In the highlighted portion of this office memorandum it is stated that in Ministry of Home Affairs circulars are issued by various authorities for keeping a watch on arrival and departure of Indians and foreigners. Such circulars are valid for a period of one year. A watch will be maintained by the person concerned at the immigration check posts only for that period. In "Sumer Singh Salkan & Ors. Vs. Asstt. Director & Ors." (Supra) Hon'ble High Court answered the references:- The questions raised in the reference are as under:- A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Lookout-Circular and under what circumstances ? B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Lookout-Circular ? C. What is the remedy avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... So far there is not even a whisper from the complainant that the applicant may be an accused subsequently. It is not denied that the applicant has appeared before the ED authorities as and when required / summoned. The only grievance of the complainant / ED is that though the applicant physically appeared in compliance of the summonses, he is not providing the relevant documents. In this regard reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in bail application no. 913/2020 "Navendu Babbar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi" decided on 18.06.2020 wherein at para no. 18 (iii), (iv) & (vi) Hon'ble High Court observed as follows :- iii. That while the State argues, that the applicant has not 'cooperated' in the investigation, the only aspect cited is that the applicant did not give to the I.O. original documents relating to the sale of goods against which money was received by the applicant/M/s Harshit Enterprises from M/s Heico Electronics. However, this demand of the I.O. must be taken as answered on point of fact, when the original, signed 'office copies' of invoice/s dated 28.03.2014 were delivered by the applicant's counsel to the I.O. in court, as recorded in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt in prison as an undertrial. vi. That criminal investigation is not a metaphorical fishing-rod handed to an investigating agency, to indulge its penchant for 'fishing around' for evidence, at its own leisure and in the fullness of time. Investigation has to be a timelimited process, to be conducted strictly within the structure and framework of the criminal procedure code. As of 21.05.2020, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed naming the applicant; and thereby the case to frame charges against the applicant has been laid before the trial court. The investigating agency must therefore be taken to have concluded investigation insofar as the applicant is concerned. Viewed from this perspective, no further indulgence is deserved by the investigating agency and it cannot say that the applicant be kept in prison as an undertrial since he has not cooperated in the investigation. 5.4 In view of the above observations it is clear that the investigating agency cannot endlessly go on saying that the required documents are not being supplied by the applicant. It is pertinent to observe that these observations of the Hon'ble High Court came in bail application. Here the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
