Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Jai Prakash Singhal Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CRL.M.C. 5012/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/10/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Jai Prakash Singhal Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court didn’t granted permission to travel abroad to the petitioner involved in hawala transactions as investigation in FIR registered by Special Cell (EOW) and ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement is pending and petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad.

Facts- By way of these petitions filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside of common order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District in ECIR/DLZO-II/54/2021 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, and FIR No. 208/2021, registered at Police Station Special Cell (EOW) u/s. 419/420/120B/384/386 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and u/s. 3/4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ vide order dated 08.07.2023 had dismissed the application filed by him seeking permission to travel abroad to Dubai for 30 days for appointing a responsible person to look after his business, and prays that the impugned order be set aside and he be granted the permission to travel aboard for the said purpose.

Conclusion- Held that the investigation against the petitioner is pending in both the cases i.e. in FIR registered by the Special Cell (EOW) and in the ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement. The liberty and the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, and this restriction was imposed upon the petitioner while he was granted anticipatory bail in the present FIR and regular bail in the present ECIR. In this Court’s opinion, learned ASJ has rightly held that petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad and that there is no permanent address of the petitioner in Dubai. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to provide any cogent reason to travel abroad. Even if the petitioner has a business in Dubai, in this era of modern technology, he can operate his business from India and can also depute a person of his choice to look after his business, more so since his own major son is also looking after his business in Dubai.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031