High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Navneet Sureka @ Navneet Kumar Sureka Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Tapeshwar Kumar Maurya,Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law,Vikas Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Srivastava,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Vikram , learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC corresponding under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "1. To quash the order dated 24.10.2024 along with condition no. 5 and 6 of anticipatory bail order dated 23.02.2024

2. Allow the petitioner to travel abroad on such terms and conditions"

3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned order dated 24.10.2024, whereby, the application of the present applicant number B42 has been rejected, whereby, the applicant had requested that his passport which is within the custody of the trial court maybe returned to him, so that he could visit abroad for the purpose of business meetings, etc.

4. The present petitioner/applicant is a Managing Director of a company, namely, M/s Mauria Udyod Limited. The learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 4 (R) of the application, wherein, he has categorically stated that during the period of investigation in the financial year 2023–24, he travelled six times to five different countries, and he properly cooperated in the investigation. Since, he is the Managing Director of export orient unit, so he is duty bound to visit abroad for the well-being of his business. Further attention has been drawn towards the rejoinder affidavit filed on 17 January 2025, wherein, vide paragraph nos. 7 to 12, he indicated the details of the countries he travelled and also complete dates and details about the country where he was to visit. Since, he was not keeping passport with him, as the request to return the passport has been rejected by the learn trial court, therefore, he could not visit Dubai from 13.01.2025 to 17.01.2025, as details thereof has been indicated in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, he has given details for his visit to America from 09.02.2025 to 15.02.2025, indicating the details of the events, place, hotel with address, check-in date and check-out date, therefore, the passport may be returned so that he could visit to the aforesaid place.

5. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has fairly submitted on behalf of the applicant that the aforesaid details may be verified by the prosecution and if the aforesaid information is found to be incorrect, his visit may stopped. He has also submitted that in the first week of April, he will have to visit abroad as details thereof has been given in paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit. Though, the present applicant was not having his passport, therefore, he could not indicate his complete details in paragraph 12. If his passport is returned to him, he will provide complete detail to the prosecution agency as well as to the court for his visit from 4th April to 6th April 6, 2025.

6. Sri Vikram Vikas Vikram Singh has further submitted that out of total proceeds of crime of Rs. 4,58,10,177/-, the property of the present applicant to the tune of Rs.6,67,20,000/- has been attached and the same is within the custody of the prosecuting agency. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has further submitted that for giving permission to visit abroad, if the applicant is directed to deposit some surety, he is ready for same, so his passport may be returned so that he could visit abroad to attend important business meetings. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has stated that the applicant further undertakes that since the applicant has given complete details in respect of his visit from 9th February 2025 to 15th February 2025, therefore, before leaving the country in the first week of April, he may again seek leave from Court concerned after providing complete details of such meeting.

7. Shri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the aforesaid request of the present applicant may only be considered if some direction protecting the prosecuting agency as well as court proceeding are issued so that the trial proceeding may go on uninterruptedly. Sri Tripathi has proposed some conditions which may be imposed upon the applicant/petitioner as those conditions have been shown to the court after being received from the investigating agency, the same is taken on record.

8. Sri Tripathi has proposed mainly five conditions which are as under:- "1. Trip-Specific Permission: Each trip to be approved by the court on a case-to-case basis, with detailed travel itineraries and purposes provided in advance.

2. Deposit of Passport: The applicant must deposit their passport with the court after returning from each approved trip.

3. Submission of Surety: The applicant may be asked to furnish a financial surety or bond as a deterrent.

4. Regular Updates: Submission of trip details, including flight tickets, stay arrangements, and official schedules, to the Enforcement Directorate prior to departure.

5. Notification of Return: A mandatory requirement to notify both the court and the Agency within a specified time of their return."

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and after perusing the aforesaid proposed conditions, it is clear that so as to show his bonafide, the applicant has himself submitted that any appropriate condition may be indicated in the order and the applicant shall follow those conditions. Therefore, I find it appropriate that the present petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.

10. Notably, in the application, B42 moved by the applicant before the trial court was not having complete details which has been given in the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, the learned trial court rejected the said application taking as an abundant precaution. However, the business man of the stretcher of the applicant is having right to visit abroad and if he is providing his complete details to visit abroad as has been provided in the rejoinder affidavit, then his passport may be returned. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 is hereby set aside.

11. Accordingly, the petitioner/applicant shall be returned his passport at the earliest so that he could visit to USA from 09.02.2025 to 15.02.2025, as per details given in the paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit. The aforesaid details shall be verified by the prosecuting agency at the earliest. The present applicant/petitioner shall furnish a financial surety or bond to the tune of 5 lakhs before getting the passport and the aforesaid surety would be returned to the applicant/petitioner as soon as he returns to India, reports to the Court and deposits his passport before the Court in terms of the order granting him anticipatory bail. As and when he wishes to go to abroad again, he shall furnish complete details in a same manner, as the same has been given in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder by providing the advance copy thereof to the prosecuting agency for the ₹ verification thereof so that the copy of the passport can be handed over to him again by the court subject to furnishing the surety of the same amount in the same manner as has been directed above.

12. It is clarified that as and when the applicant wishes to go abroad, he shall file an application to get the copy of the passport, the same shall be provided to him for limited period and the applicant/petitioner shall furnish the bond in the same manner, and after returning from abroad, the same bond/surety would be returned to the applicant. While passing appropriate order to provide the passport, the trial court shall seek report from the prosecuting agency and on such report of the prosecuting agency about the details given by the applicant, the learned trial court shall pass appropriate orders on each time, strictly in accordance with law.

13. The learned trial court should not reject such applications in a mechanical manner, but if the prosecuting agency apprises the learned trial court about any concealment or shortcomings on the details so provided by the applicant, any appropriate order may be passed by the learned trial court on such information provided to the court by the prosecuting agency. In that way, the learned trial court would have complete information about the applicant for the period the applicant remained in abroad, the date of return to India and about his future visit to abroad, if any.

14. On the aforesaid conditions, the learned counsel for the E.D. has no objection.

15. It is also made clear that the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Bail Application (U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C.) No. 829 of 2024 passed by Sri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Sessions Judge/Spl. Court PMLA, Lucknow stands modified to that extent only.

16. In view of the aforesaid terms only this application/petition is allowed.

17. No order as to cost. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Anurag

Applicant :- Navneet Sureka @ Navneet Kumar Sureka Opposite Party :- Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Tapeshwar Kumar Maurya,Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law,Vikas Vikram Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kuldeep Srivastava,Rohit Tripathi Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Vikas Vikram , learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC corresponding under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "1. To quash the order dated 24.10.2024 along with condition no. 5 and 6 of anticipatory bail order dated 23.02.2024

2. Allow the petitioner to travel abroad on such terms and conditions"

3. Attention has been drawn towards impugned order dated 24.10.2024, whereby, the application of the present applicant number B42 has been rejected, whereby, the applicant had requested that his passport which is within the custody of the trial court maybe returned to him, so that he could visit abroad for the purpose of business meetings, etc.

4. The present petitioner/applicant is a Managing Director of a company, namely, M/s Mauria Udyod Limited. The learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 4 (R) of the application, wherein, he has categorically stated that during the period of investigation in the financial year 2023–24, he travelled six times to five different countries, and he properly cooperated in the investigation. Since, he is the Managing Director of export orient unit, so he is duty bound to visit abroad for the well-being of his business. Further attention has been drawn towards the rejoinder affidavit filed on 17 January 2025, wherein, vide paragraph nos. 7 to 12, he indicated the details of the countries he travelled and also complete dates and details about the country where he was to visit. Since, he was not keeping passport with him, as the request to return the passport has been rejected by the learn trial court, therefore, he could not visit Dubai from 13.01.2025 to 17.01.2025, as details thereof has been indicated in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, he has given details for his visit to America from 09.02.2025 to 15.02.2025, indicating the details of the events, place, hotel with address, check-in date and check-out date, therefore, the passport may be returned so that he could visit to the aforesaid place.

5. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has fairly submitted on behalf of the applicant that the aforesaid details may be verified by the prosecution and if the aforesaid information is found to be incorrect, his visit may stopped. He has also submitted that in the first week of April, he will have to visit abroad as details thereof has been given in paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit. Though, the present applicant was not having his passport, therefore, he could not indicate his complete details in paragraph 12. If his passport is returned to him, he will provide complete detail to the prosecution agency as well as to the court for his visit from 4th April to 6th April 6, 2025.

6. Sri Vikram Vikas Vikram Singh has further submitted that out of total proceeds of crime of Rs. 4,58,10,177/-, the property of the present applicant to the tune of Rs.6,67,20,000/- has been attached and the same is within the custody of the prosecuting agency. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has further submitted that for giving permission to visit abroad, if the applicant is directed to deposit some surety, he is ready for same, so his passport may be returned so that he could visit abroad to attend important business meetings. Sri Vikas Vikram Singh has stated that the applicant further undertakes that since the applicant has given complete details in respect of his visit from 9th February 2025 to 15th February 2025, therefore, before leaving the country in the first week of April, he may again seek leave from Court concerned after providing complete details of such meeting.

7. Shri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the aforesaid request of the present applicant may only be considered if some direction protecting the prosecuting agency as well as court proceeding are issued so that the trial proceeding may go on uninterruptedly. Sri Tripathi has proposed some conditions which may be imposed upon the applicant/petitioner as those conditions have been shown to the court after being received from the investigating agency, the same is taken on record.

8. Sri Tripathi has proposed mainly five conditions which are as under:- "1. Trip-Specific Permission: Each trip to be approved by the court on a case-to-case basis, with detailed travel itineraries and purposes provided in advance.

2. Deposit of Passport: The applicant must deposit their passport with the court after returning from each approved trip.

3. Submission of Surety: The applicant may be asked to furnish a financial surety or bond as a deterrent.

4. Regular Updates: Submission of trip details, including flight tickets, stay arrangements, and official schedules, to the Enforcement Directorate prior to departure.

5. Notification of Return: A mandatory requirement to notify both the court and the Agency within a specified time of their return."

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record and after perusing the aforesaid proposed conditions, it is clear that so as to show his bonafide, the applicant has himself submitted that any appropriate condition may be indicated in the order and the applicant shall follow those conditions. Therefore, I find it appropriate that the present petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.

10. Notably, in the application, B42 moved by the applicant before the trial court was not having complete details which has been given in the rejoinder affidavit, therefore, the learned trial court rejected the said application taking as an abundant precaution. However, the business man of the stretcher of the applicant is having right to visit abroad and if he is providing his complete details to visit abroad as has been provided in the rejoinder affidavit, then his passport may be returned. Therefore, the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 is hereby set aside.

11. Accordingly, the petitioner/applicant shall be returned his passport at the earliest so that he could visit to USA from 09.02.2025 to 15.02.2025, as per details given in the paragraph 11 of the rejoinder affidavit. The aforesaid details shall be verified by the prosecuting agency at the earliest. The present applicant/petitioner shall furnish a financial surety or bond to the tune of 5 lakhs before getting the passport and the aforesaid surety would be returned to the applicant/petitioner as soon as he returns to India, reports to the Court and deposits his passport before the Court in terms of the order granting him anticipatory bail. As and when he wishes to go to abroad again, he shall furnish complete details in a same manner, as the same has been given in paragraph 11 of the rejoinder by providing the advance copy thereof to the prosecuting agency for the ₹ verification thereof so that the copy of the passport can be handed over to him again by the court subject to furnishing the surety of the same amount in the same manner as has been directed above.

12. It is clarified that as and when the applicant wishes to go abroad, he shall file an application to get the copy of the passport, the same shall be provided to him for limited period and the applicant/petitioner shall furnish the bond in the same manner, and after returning from abroad, the same bond/surety would be returned to the applicant. While passing appropriate order to provide the passport, the trial court shall seek report from the prosecuting agency and on such report of the prosecuting agency about the details given by the applicant, the learned trial court shall pass appropriate orders on each time, strictly in accordance with law.

13. The learned trial court should not reject such applications in a mechanical manner, but if the prosecuting agency apprises the learned trial court about any concealment or shortcomings on the details so provided by the applicant, any appropriate order may be passed by the learned trial court on such information provided to the court by the prosecuting agency. In that way, the learned trial court would have complete information about the applicant for the period the applicant remained in abroad, the date of return to India and about his future visit to abroad, if any.

14. On the aforesaid conditions, the learned counsel for the E.D. has no objection.

15. It is also made clear that the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Bail Application (U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C.) No. 829 of 2024 passed by Sri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Sessions Judge/Spl. Court PMLA, Lucknow stands modified to that extent only.

16. In view of the aforesaid terms only this application/petition is allowed.

17. No order as to cost. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Anurag