The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMA No.54 of 2024 (1) Charchit Mishra -versus- (1) Republic of India (CBI) …. Petitioner Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajnish Sinha, Advocate & Mr. Satya Mohapatra, Advocate …. Opp. Party Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Advocate Order No. 02. CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 30.04.2024
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Soura Chandra Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No.(i) Page 1 of 6 imposed by learned Special Judge (CBI) Court No.I- cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar while enlarging the petitioner on bail vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in R.C. Case No.09(A) of 2022. The condition No.(i) reads as under: “(i) The accused-petitioner shall surrender his passport before this Court at the time of acceptance of bail bond.” 3. The petitioner moved an application dated 01.12.2023 seeking modification of the said condition before the trial Court. The opposite party-CBI filed objection to the said application, inter alia, stating that the ground urged by the petitioner that he being the Director of Orissa Stevedores Limited (OSL) needs to visit outside India is not bonafide ground because he is one of the Directors and the other Director can visit Overseas for the company work. The CBI also stated that in absence of any medical urgency or any other urgency of like kind, the prayer of modification of the condition no.1 cannot be allowed. 4. Vide order dated 02.02.2024, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar rejected the said application. In the present petition, the petitioner assails the said order and reiterated his prayer for modification of the condition imposed by the Court below as stated above. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Page 2 of 6 the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in CRL.A. 182/2021 & Crl.M.A. Nos.7317/2021, 18299/2021 in Suresh Nanda vs. Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that exactly the same condition imposed by learned trial Court in that case has been altered. In the said case, learned Court below had directed the appellant therein not to leave the Country without permission of the Court. The High Court of Delhi altered the said condition by substituting the following condition. “(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without informing the Trial Court and IO a week in advance of his visiting abroad and shall furnish the complete itinerary stating the country/countries, which he intends to visit and the period of his stay as also the addresses where he would be staying and his contact numbers. He shall also inform the Trial Court and IO in writing about his return to India within a week of arrival. (ii) The applicant shall share his mobile number with IO which he will be carrying during his travel abroad and keep the location app ‘on’ at all times.” Specially relying upon the aforementioned judgment apart from the other judgment cited at the Bar, Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel seeks indulgence of this Court. 6. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-CBI vehemently opposed the Page 3 of 6 prayer made by the petitioner seeking modification of the order of the Court below. The CBI has filed reply affidavit in the present case. In the reply affidavit, apart from the same objections which were taken before the Court below, one additional objection has been raised in para-16, which reads as under: “16. That, further investigation is pending against the accused and Crl.MC No.2909/2022 filed by CBI for seeking permission of this Hon’ble Court for taking voice samples of accused persons in this case is also pending before this Hon’ble Court. Thus, during further investigation and in the interest of the justice, the accused may not be allowed to travel abroad under any circumstances. Further, there are also sophisticated voice chord surgery available in Modern Hospitals which can change the tonal quality and nature of voice. Thus, if the accused does it abroad, it will affect the interest of justice and all exercise will become futile and academic.” the pendency of the 7. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel submits that since the voice sample of the petitioner has not yet been taken and the trial is at crucial stage, the CBI apprehends that allowing the petitioner to travel abroad would be detrimental to prosecution. Mere availability of sophisticated voice chord surgery procedure abroad sans there being any reasonable apprehension that the petitioner may undergo such surgery if travel overseas is of no consequence. 8. I have taken into consideration the submissions made by both the learned counsel at the Bar and perused the contentions of the petitioner and the objection raised by CBI. Page 4 of 6 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition no.(i) as mentioned above is varied and the following two conditions are imposed. “(i) The petitioner shall not leave the country without informing the Trial Court and IO a week in advance of his visiting abroad and shall furnish the complete itinerary stating the country/countries, which he intends to visit and the period of his stay as also the addresses where he would be staying and his contact numbers. He shall also inform the Trial Court and IO in writing about his return to India within a week of arrival. (ii) The applicant shall share his mobile number with IO which he will be carrying during his travel abroad and keep the location app ‘on’ at all times.” 10. To allay the apprehension of the CBI as expressed in para-16 of the objection, I grant liberty to the CBI to urge before the Court below to impose any other conditions on the petitioner, if he travels abroad and moves an application before the Court below seeking leave for the same. At that point of time, the CBI may appraise the apprehension as expressed by it in the reply to the present petition filed before this Court. 11. With the aforementioned modification and
Decision
observation, the CRLMA is disposed of. Judge Subhasis (S.S. Mishra) Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 02-May-2024 11:49:05 Page 6 of 6