9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner s father and other accused on 30th October 2021. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the said case registered by the E.O.W. It also appears that the SEBI has filed several prosecution complaints in the matter of Pancard Clubs Limited in 2019. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused by SEBI in any of the said complaints - It is not in dispute that the petitioner has abided by the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. It appears that the petitioner has businesses overseas, as a result of which, he is required to regularly travel overseas. It also appears that the petitioner is involved in business of short-term rental service apartments in Thailand and Dubai, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the respondent No.1-SFIO, does not appear to be valid and bonafide. The impugned LOC issued as against the petitioner, at the behest of the respondent No.1-SFIO, is quashed and set aside - The petitioner to abide by his undertaking given to this Court dated 12th July 2024 - Petition allowed. - REVATI MOHITE DERE ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Mr. Rohan P. Shah a/w Mr. Sankalp Sharma, Srisabari Rajan i/b Hetal Laghave, for the Petitioner Mr. S. K. Halwasia, Addl.P.P. a/w Mr. Keshav Thakur, for the Respondent Ms. P. P. Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent-State ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons the petitioner was permitted to travel overseas and as such the petitioner has travelled overseas and has complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the said orders. He further submits that the petitioner s mother, a senior citizen, his wife and one school going child, are residing with him. He submits that the SFIO after investigation has filed a complaint in February 2024, however, cogzinance of the said complaint has not been taken by the concerned Court, till date. Since, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is required to travel overseas regularly for business purpose, the LOC issued against the petitioner, be quashed. 5. Mr. Halwasia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a director of the said Pancard Clubs Limited. The respondent No.1 is the SFIO, who was also investigating the transactions of Pancard Clubs Limited. In the said case, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused along with others. It is a matter of record and which fact is not disputed, is that the petitioner was summoned by the SFIO office on 4 occasions i.e. on 19th January 2021; 11th January 2022; 2nd March 2022 and 15th September 2022 and on all the said dates the petitioner reported to the SFIO's office. It also appears that the petitioner had addressed emails/communications to the SFIO and had provided certain details/information as sought for, by the office of the SFIO. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to be issued or continued, the agency must bear in mind the right of an accused to travel freely, guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It cannot and must not be routinely issued. This Court in Showik Indrajit Chakraborty vs The Addl. Superintendent of Police and Another Writ Petition No.3135 of 2023 and other connected petitions, decided on 22.02.2024 , have observed in para 23 as under; 23 LOCs cannot be issued as a matter of course, but only when there is/are reason/(s) to issue the same i.e. when a person deliberately evades arrest or does not appear in the trial Court or for any other reason. An LOC is a coercive measure to make the person surrender and as such interferes with the person s right of pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the respondent No.1 is clearly distinguishable and will not apply to the facts of the present case, for the reasons stated hereinabove. The petitioner has roots in the society and has also tendered an undertaking as stated aforesaid. In this light of the matter, the apprehension of the respondent No.1-SFIO, does not appear to be valid and bonafide. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the petition is allowed on the following terms and conditions:- ORDER (i) The impugned LOC issued as against the petitioner, at the behest of the respondent No.1-SFIO, is quashed and set aside; (ii) The petitioner to abide by his undertaking given to this Court dated 12th July 2024; (iii) The respondent No.1-SFIO shall inform the Immigration Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
