IN THE COURT OF LD. ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE; ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,

NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

CBI                                VERSUS              RAVI KUMAR RANA

FIR NO. RC____________________

U/S: 420/471/168 OF IPC

P.S.: CBI, SC-I, NEW DELHI

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED _________ FOR CANCELLATION OF LOOK OUT CIRCULAR (LOC) OPEN / ISSUED AGAINST THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. ___________DELHI.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1.                 That the aforesaid case is pending before this Hon’ble Court and chargesheet has been filed in the aforesaid FIR against the applicant / accused.  

2.                 That there is no basis for issuance of LOCs, against the applicant / accused. It is pertinent to mention herein notice U/s 41A of CrPC served upon the Applicant / accused through WhatsApp  or email and applicant always give reply / response to the same to the IO of the case who issue the notice. The issuance of LOC against the Applicant is itself bad in law and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. LOCs, if any pending in the name of the Applicant / accused is/are also contrary to the objective for issuance of LOC. 

3.                 That the issuance of LOCs pending against the applicant / accused violates accused’s rights under Article 14, 19[1][g] and 21 of the Constitution of India which include amongst others the right to have passport and right to travel.

4.                 That the Applicant / accused is a businessman and is associated with several domestic and international forums for promotion of the economic relations amongst various countries across the Globe. and from which source he earning and living, due to business purpose applicant has frequently visits at outside India and it is submitted that applicant abscond from any proceeding or investigation and always respond to the letter / notice of the IO as and when served upon the Applicant / accused and always available for join the investigation.

5.                 That the applicant / accused has been fully cooperating with the investigation authority and has appeared before them whenever required and always respond to their notice / letter.

6.                 That the grounds on which the LOC was issued are no longer valid as investigation has been completed and charge sheet has already been filed before this Hon’ble Court and there is no need for further investigation in this matter and nothing incriminating found against the applicant / accused by the investigating officer.

7.                 That the applicant / accused is not a flight risk and has strong ties to the community, as demonstrated by his family who dependent upon him and being ex-public servant having accountability towards the nation. It is pertinent to mention herein that the applicant / accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and it is a clear case of vendetta as the wife of the applicant / accused who implicated the applicant / accused in the present case as their matrimonial dispute and multiple litigation are pending against each other.

8.                 Thus, the applicant / accused prays for cancelation of Look-Out Circular as prayed in the main application and subsequently prays to allow the applicant / accused to travel abroad for to attend important business meeting.

9.                 Issuance of the LOC is causing grave prejudice to the applicant / accused. It is relevant to mention that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and cannot be restrained without any basis in law.

10.             That in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been observed that it is a matter of constitutional right to go abroad. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak V Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, held that: -

“Even if the power to impound the passport were regarded as administrative in character, because it seriously interferes with the constitutional right of the holder of the passport to go abroad and entails adverse civil consequences.”

11.             The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India 2019(2)SCT741(SC), also held that the right to travel abroad is an important basic human right of great significance, relevant para are reproduced hereunder:

“5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self-determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 which are as follows:Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.”

12.             It is submitted that the liberty of a person is his fundamental right, and the same cannot be violated by the Investigating Officer by taking recourse to illegal actions of issuance of LOC, without being authorized under law to do so. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Maneka Gandhi Vs. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597, wherein it has been held that:

“..under Article 21 the procedure established by law must be just, fair and reasonable through which life or personal liberty is taken away. If this is permitted to be done, then it will be simply putting a premium on the inaptness or callous attitude of the Investigating Agency and also working to the detriment of the fundamental right of an under trial who may be enlarged on bail. The purpose of imposition of such a condition, as has already been stated hereinbefore, is to ensure that the accused must submit herself to the processes of law. The said purpose can be secured by modifying the said condition of surrendering the passport and obtaining the permission from the Court by requiring the accused to either furnish some title deed of an immovable property to the Court to ensure that she does not flee from the processes of law or by imposing some additional conditions.

9.   The Petitioner in the instant case has categorically stated that she has interest in immovable property at Delhi as well as at Goa, therefore I feel that the interest of the Investigating Agency can be secured by ensuring that she makes herself available during the course of the trial by requiring her to file an undertaking that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or trial. 

10.                       For the reasons mentioned above, I feel that the prayer of the Petitioner for waiving the condition of surrendering her passport and obtaining the permission from the competent court in terms of the order dated 21st August, 2009 is working very onerous on the Petitioner restricting her freedom of movement and her right to travel abroad under guaranteed Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in view of the fact that already 3½ years have elapsed and yet the Investigating Agency has not filed the final report. Accordingly, the said condition is dispensed with, however the Petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking in writing to the Registrar General of this Court that she will make herself available during the course of investigation or the trial as and when she is required apart from furnishing itinerary of her travel abroad to the IO, including the place where she is likely to stay and the countries she proposes to visit and the date of departure and the date of return. This condition will be deemed to have been incorporated as a condition of the bail till the charge sheet is filed and after the charge sheet is filed, she would ensure that the trial of the case shall not be adjourned or deferred on the ground that she is undertaking to travel abroad.”

13.             That this Hon’ble High Court recently in Writ Petition bearing No. 4081/2021 titled as Jayant Nanda vs Union of India allowed the assesses civil misc application seeking permission to travel abroad on a business tour to UAE & Thailand during the pendency of Writ Petition against a look out circular.

14.             That this Hon’ble High Court in vide Order dated 27.10.2021 in W.P.C 12169/2021 titled as Manan Goel vs. Union of India and Ors has permitted the applicant / accused to travel abroad for eight weeks for Germany Switzerland and UK by suspending the LOC issued against him at the behest of Bank of Baroda.

15.             The applicant / accused has deep roots in the society and commands respect in the social circles. Therefore, there are no chances of the applicant / accused running away or fleeing from the country or hamper the course of investigation in any manner. Under these circumstances, the applicant / accused prays before this Hon’ble Court to allow the present application for cancellation of LOC and grant permission to travel abroad to attend important business meeting etc.

16.             That it is humbly submitted that, upon the instant application being allowed by this Hon’ble Court, the applicant / accused shall submit an affidavit disclosing the detailed itinerary of his trip and the details of his stay during the trip, as well as undertaking that the applicant / accused will not seek extension of his stay and that his counsel will remain present before this Hon’ble Court in case of any proceedings during the said period.

17.             That the applicant / accused undertakes that he will not dispute his identity for the proceedings, if any, conducted in his absence and the applicant / accused have instructed his counsel to appear before this Hon’ble Court and to assist this Hon’ble Court in every manner possible and not to delay the proceedings in case of their absence.

18.             That the applicant / accused will suffer grave harm, irreparable loss and injury in case the present application is not allowed. On the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent i.e. CBI, in case the present application is allowed and permission to travel abroad is granted to the applicant / accused.

19.             The present application is being filed bonafide and in the interest of justice.

PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

A.      Pass necessary orders and direction, thereby allowing the present application and cancel the Look Out Circular and permitting the applicant / accused to travel abroad / outside India freely with the permission of this Hon’ble Court;

AND

B.      Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed to meet the ends of justice.

APPLICANT / ACCUSED

Through

Place: New Delhi

Dated:

___________________

ADVOCATE

_____________________,

Nde-110015

Mob.No____________

Email: ________________