Case Law Details
Mukesh Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court recently granted permission to an applicant, Mukesh Gupta, who is facing a pending criminal appeal, to travel abroad. The court, in its order, highlighted the significant issue of “overflowing dockets” and an “acute shortage of judges” contributing to delays in disposing of cases, including criminal appeals.
Mukesh Gupta, the applicant/appellant in a case where his sentence has been suspended pending appeal, sought leave to travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan, and Georgia between May 1, 2025, and May 11, 2025, to attend a Rotary Club assembly. He argued that the trip was important for his social connections and business growth. His counsel presented that he had previously been permitted to travel abroad for business and had returned, had strong ties to India through his sons, and at 67 years old, was unlikely to flee.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent in the appeal, opposed the application. The prosecution expressed concern that if allowed to leave the country, the applicant might not return to face the outcome of his appeal. The CBI also referenced a previous instance where a similar request for leisure travel by the applicant was declined by a predecessor bench in November 2019, contrasting it with a business trip for which permission was granted in August 2019.
The court examined the previous travel history, noting the distinction made earlier between business and leisure travel. However, the presiding judge took a different view in light of the prevailing judicial circumstances. The court’s order observed that due to the substantial backlog and insufficient number of judges relative to the population and volume of litigation, the court is unable to decide appeals within a reasonable timeframe. The judge remarked on the difficulty in reaching regular matters on the daily cause list, often leaving matters unheard even after court hours, describing the situation as “extremely painful for the judge.”
Considering this uncertain environment where appeals filed in 2019 are yet to be heard on their turn as regular matters, the court stated that “depriving the applicant/appellant free movement, even if to enjoy leisure trips cannot be justified.” The court acknowledged the necessity of ensuring the applicant’s return to face legal proceedings but deemed that appropriate conditions could secure this.
Consequently, the Delhi High Court allowed Mukesh Gupta’s application to travel abroad. The permission was granted subject to specific conditions aimed at ensuring his return: furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of the High Court. Furthermore, the applicant is required to return to India on or before May 12, 2025, and submit a copy of his passport reflecting his travel details within one week of his return.
The main criminal appeal remains pending and is listed to be heard in its regular turn. The order underscores the operational challenges within the judicial system and their potential influence on interim decisions concerning the rights and liberties of litigants awaiting final judgment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. In furtherance of last order, I heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. The applicant/appellant, seeks permission to travel abroad from 01.05.2025 to 11.05.2025 in order to attend a club assembly of Rotary Club, to be held in Almaty, Kazakistan and Georgia. It is contended on behalf of applicant/appellant that attending the said programme is vital for him from the angle of his social ties and business growth. The application is strongly opposed by the respondent/CBI solely on the ground that if allowed to leave the country, the applicant/appellant would not return to face sentence, which has been suspended by the predecessor bench while admitting this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant took me through previous records, contending that earlier also the applicant/appellant was allowed to travel abroad by the predecessor bench vide order dated 01.08.2019 and he duly returned to pursue this appeal. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant also submits that the applicant/appellant has roots in the society, with one of his sons being a practicing advocate of this court and the other son being involved in business of the applicant/appellant. Learned counsel for applicant/appellant also submits that age of the applicant being about 67 years, there is no scope of his fleeing from justice.
4. On the other hand, learned SPP for respondent/CBI has taken me through order dated 26.11.2019 of the predecessor bench, whereby a similar permission to travel abroad was declined because it was a leisure trip. Learned SPP submits that once allowed to leave the country, the applicant/appellant would not return.
5. I have examined the previous record, from which it appears that for business trip, the applicant/appellant was allowed to travel abroad but such permission for leisure trip was declined by the predecessor bench.
6. In my considered view, since on account of overflowing dockets, this Court is unable to decide the appeals within reasonable period of time, right to even leisure trips to certain extent ought not be declined. The events like club assembly of Rotarians are more in the form of general get-togethers where social relations are developed and nurtured in addition to business relations. The present appeal was filed in the year 2019 and admitted by the predecessor bench, to be heard at its turn as a regular matter. On account of acute shortage of judges as compared to the general population and the litigation quantum, for past long time, the list of regular matters does not reach till end of the day of hearing. Rather, many a time even beyond 05:00 pm when the Courts rise for the day, some of the matters remain unheard, which is extremely painful for the judge. In such uncertain atmosphere, depriving the applicant/appellant free movement, even if to enjoy leisure trips cannot be justified.
7. Of course the Court must be conscious about ensuring return of the applicant/appellant to face the pending legal proceedings. That can be ensured through appropriate conditions.
8. In view of the above discussion, the application is allowed and the applicant/appellant is permitted to travel abroad to Almaty, Kazakistan and Georgia during the period from 01.05.2025 to 11.05.2025 subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court and also subject to the condition that on or before 12.05.2025, the applicant/appellant shall return to India and shall place on record copy of his passport reflecting his travel within one week of his return.
CRL.A. 535/2019
9. List on its turn.
Author Bio
