Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Sana Juneja Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Advocates v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.A. 14/2025 RAMESH KUMAR JAYASWAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Sana Juneja & Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Advocates. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. RS Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Mr. Akash Singh and Mr. Sadeev Kang, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R% 19.08.2025 CRL.M.A. 24306/2025 (exemption)1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.A. 24305/2025 (for seeking permission to travel abroad) in CRL.A. 14/20253.By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking permission to travel abroad i.e., Singapore from 23.08.2025 to 30.08.2025 for vacation and to spend brief time with his immediate family members. 4.Brief facts of the present case are that vide the impugned judgment of conviction, the appellant along with his brother/co-convict, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal and M/s AIPL, has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:12:38 (PC Act) (CBI), Coal Block Cases-01, RADC, New Delhi, in Case No. CBI-41/2020, arising out of MR No. RC 221 2016 E 002, under Section MOB read with Section 420 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereafter 'IPC'), registered with Branch, CBI/EO-III/New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 120B read with Sections 471/420 of the IPC and vide order on sentence dated 11.12.2024, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for each offence along with a total fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months for each offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the present case, the appellant along with other co-convicts has been convicted in Coal Scam case. He was found guilty of being in conspiracy with convict no.3, Abhijeet Infrastructure Private Ltd. ("AIPL") and convict no.l, Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, for cheating the 24th Screening Committee, Ministry of Coal, Ministry of Steel and the State of Jharkhand while having knowledge that numerous forged documents were used on behalf of AIPL for the purpose of procuring the Brinda, Sisai Coal Blocks. 5.As per the case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court, the appellant had made false representations and was having knowledge of forged documents being furnished to the Screening Committee and the Ministry of Steel for procuring the recommendation of the 24th Screening Committee for the Brinda, Sisai, Dumri, underground mining of non-coking Coal Blocks. It was alleged that the appellant had misrepresented himself as Director/Joint Managing Director of AIPL and was also engaged in acts which amount to a betrayal of trust of shareholders by a key-functionary in a This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:12:38 company. It was further alleged that from 30.10.2003, the appellant was the authorized signatory of the convict no.3, company and prior thereto, he had falsely impersonated himself out to be authorized signatory by addressing letter dated 15.07.2003 to the Ministry of Coal and Ministry of Steel. One other letter dated 30.08.2003 is written by the appellant, addressed to the Chairman Screening Committee wherein, he had falsely represented himself to be authorized signatory of AIPL. As per the case of prosecution, the appellant had repeatedly represented himself to be in official position which he did not hold, i.e., Director/Joint Managing Director of the Convict Company, M/s AIPL (A-3), before the 18th, 21st, 22nd and 24th Screening Committee Meetings which were held in 2003, despite the fact that he had already resigned from the said position in 2002. 6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant submits that during the past, the applicant has been permitted by the learned Trial Court to travel abroad on various occasions by certain imposing condition(s). It is also submitted that the Predecessor Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.01.2025, 03.03.2025 & 24.04.2025 had also permitted the present applicant to travel abroad. It is further submitted that the order of suspension of sentence dated 11.12.2024 was extended from time to time by this Court and has finally been made absolute vide Judgment dated 01.08.2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court. 7.Issue notice. 8.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation accepts notice and concedes that in the past the applicant herein has been granted permission to visit abroad and he has not misused the liberty so granted. However, she states that on those occasions he had This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/08/2025 at 12:12:38 mentioned specific reasons for travelling abroad, whereas, in the present application he wants to go abroad for vacation. 9.After hearing arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties, this Court notes that the applicant herein has been granted permission to travel abroad on various occasions in the past and he has not misused the liberty so granted. This Court further notes the mere fact that he wants to go abroad to spend time with his immediate family for a brief period, in the background fact that in the past he had not misused the liberty of travelling abroad. In view of the above, this Court inclines to grant him permission to travel to Singapore from 23.08.2025 to 30.08.2025 on the same terms and conditions as imposed vide order dated 24.04.2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court. 10.In view of the above, the application stands disposed of accordingly. 11.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J AUGUST 19, 2025/vc