Full Judgment Text
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 30th July, 2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1832/2023
SHAHNAWAZ MOHAMED HANIF MALANG .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangita Bhayana, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Counsel for respondents (appearance
not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CRL.M.A.22149/2024 (Exemption)
1. For the reasons stated therein, the Application is allowed.
2. The Application is accordingly disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 22148/2024 (for modification of Order dated 10.07.2024)
3. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner for
modification of the Order dated 10.07.2024, whereby the LOC against the
petitioner, was quashed.
4. It is submitted that though vide Order dated 10.07.2024, the LOC
against the petitioner has been quashed but a condition had been imposed
that he shall take the permission from the learned Trial Court before leaving
the country. It is further submitted that after the registration of the FIR by
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(Crl.)1832/2023 Page 1 of 4
DigitallySigned By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2024
00:23:12
the CBI, the petitioner has never been arrested. Further, even though the
Charge Sheet has already been filed before Lucknow Court, the cognizance
is yet to be taken and because of these circumstances, no application for bail
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the bail
and cancellation of LOC, operate in two different spheres and such a
condition would have an impact of nullifying the cancellation of LOC.
5. It is further submitted that similar condition which was imposed while
quashing the LOC of two of the co-accused namely Anis Mohd. Iqbal
Mansoori and Shahan Mirza has already been modified/deleted.
6. It is therefore prayed that on the same premise and parity the
condition to take permission of the Trial Court to travel abroad, may be
deleted from the Order dated 10.07.2024
7. Learned Prosecutor for the CBI has vehemently argued that this
condition is well considered and in case the petitioner goes abroad, there
would be no control of this Court to ensure his presence and his absence
would delay the trial. The Prosecutor has placed reliance on Disha A. Ravi
V/s State in Crl.M.C. 5914/2023 decided by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 26.09.2023, in support thereof. The learned counsel has further
stated that the Charge Sheet has already been filed, though cognizance has
not been taken and there is no occasion for the petitioner, to seek bail, at this
stage.
8. Submissions heard.
9. Pertinently, the LOC that had been issued against the petitioner, has
been cancelled vide Order dated 10.07.2024, though a condition had been
put that the petitioner would take prior permission from the Court, whenever
he is travelling abroad.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(Crl.)1832/2023 Page 2 of 4
DigitallySigned By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2024
00:23:12
10. The record shows that the petitioner in his Application for
cancellation of LOC, had specifically mentioned that he was working as
Sales Supervisor in Capita International General Trading – LLC, Dubai,
UAE and it was in connection with her job, that she used to go to Dubai. A
Letter dated 10.08.2023 from his employer Mr. Mohammed Haneefa
Chemnad Bava, was also annexed in support thereof.
11. It was further asserted stated that his family which comprises of his
wife and two minor sons are permanent residents of Mumbai. He is the sole
bread earner of the family and his family would starve to death if he is not
permitted to travel to Dubai to take up a job, since he has no source of
income in Mumbai.
12. From the submissions made in the Application and the documents
relied upon by the petitioner, an impression was created that it is the LOC,
which was preventing him from taking up a job in Dubai for which he had
an offer. The challenged condition was, therefore, imposed to ensure that the
investigations and the trial takes place and is not thwarted on account of
non-presence of the petitioner.
13. However, today during the course of arguments, it has been submitted
that the petitioner has not gone to Dubai and he is presently located in India.
It is vehemently contended that the condition of seeking prior permission is
not only onerous, but also is self-defeating. The petitioner apparently is
based in Mumbai as reflected in the memo of parties, while the case has
been registered in Lucknow.
14. Considering the totality of circumstances and keeping in mind that
though there is no bail application pending as the cognizance on the
Chargesheet is yet to be taken by the learned Court, in Lucknow, while the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(Crl.)1832/2023 Page 3 of 4
DigitallySigned By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2024
00:23:12
petitioner is based in Mumbai, the condition under challenge, in para 16 of
the Order dated 10.07.2024, is modified, to read as “The matter is already
before the learned Trial Court for trial. The petitioner shall keep the Trial
Court informed about his place of residence and his updated contact number
and in the event of travelling abroad, he may inform the concerned Trial
Court, by way of an Application annexed with his itinerary and his intended
placed of residence in abroad. The Look Out Notice is, therefore, directed to
be closed.”.
15. Thus, the condition is accordingly modified in the Order dated
10.07.2024.
The Application is accordingly disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2024/RS
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(Crl.)1832/2023 Page 4 of 4
DigitallySigned By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:03.08.2024
00:23:12