9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le warrants and other coercive measures. Coupled with either of these conditions should be a likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. Neither of these conditions exist in the instant case. The petitioner is not evading arrest. In fact, he has appeared before the investigating agency whenever required to do so and the investigating agency has not thought it proper to arrest him. Since the investigation is still pending and challan has not been presented, there is no question of any trial Court issuing/adopting coercive steps to ensure the presence of the petitioner. In view of the above, it is evident that the conditions which must pre-exist before a request can be made for opening of an LOC, do not exist in the present case. Thus, the continuation of an LOC for more than 3 years against the petitioner is a violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It is, thus, liable to be withdrawn. The respondent is directed to withdraw the LOC. However, the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking before the concerned investigating officer that he shall present himself whenever required by the investigating agency - the writ petition is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LOC but the same was rejected vide communication dated 09.06.2020 on the ground that the case against him is still under investigation. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. It has also been averred that the petitioner has not been arrested till date and has joined investigation whenever called to do so. The investigation is still in progress and challan having not been presented, there is no question of issuance of summons by the competent Court. The contents of the FIR may also be noticed. The father of the petitioner retired from the Indian Administrative Service. Prior thereto, he served in the Haryana cadre as well as in the Government of India. He remained Principal Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Haryana Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hooda w.e.f. 06.03.2005 to 31.10.2009 when he took retirement. Thereafter, he served as a Member of the Competition Commission of India for a period of 5 years i.e. from 30.11.2009 to 31.12.2014. As mentioned earlier, initially an FIR No. 510 dated 12.08.2015 was registered at Police Station Manesar against unknown public servants of Government of Haryana and unknown private persons. The said FIR was transferred to the CBI by the Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permission to travel abroad have been denied, forcing him to approach the CBI Court for permission to travel abroad and the record shows that on each occasion, the petitioner has returned within the period laid down by the CBI Court. Thus, the apprehension of the CBI is wholly misplaced. None of the lawfully permissible grounds for opening of an LOC exist in this case and, thus the continuation of LOC is illegal. An LOC can remain in force for a period of one year only where-after it lapses automatically. Although, in its reply it has been stated by the CBI that the LOC has been reviewed periodically, the dates on which the renewal was done are not forthcoming. In all probability, no renewal has taken place and thus the LOC has lapsed. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sumer Singh Salkan and others vs. Asstt. Director and others, Manu/DE/1937/2010, a judgement of the Madras High Court in E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy and Ors. vs. State and Ors., Manu/TN/2308/2013 and a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Afzal Jaffer Khan vs. The Officer, CBI ACB Office and others, Crl. Writ Petition No.263 of 2019 decided on 29.08.2019. Learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble grounds exist for adoption of the said procedure in the instant case? A perusal of the Madras High Court judgment in E.V. Perumal Samy Reddy (supra) reveals that the instructions issued for opening of LOC lay down the types of persons in respect of whom an LOC can be opened. Inter alia, these persons are those required by Courts in criminal/civil cases and who are absconding and absconding offenders wanted by various investigating agencies. There are other types of persons also mentioned but those are not relevant for the purposes of this case. The petitioner does not fall in either category. In the case of Sumer Singh Salkan (supra), the Delhi High Court has answered four questions that arose in the said case. The answer relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced below:- A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial Court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. This answer has also been reproduced in office memorandum dated 27.10.2010 issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
