1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 15664-M of 2009
Date of Decision: 6.8.2009
***
Dinesh Kumar Batra
.. Petitioner
Vs.
CBI Delhi
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for CBI.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is facing prosecution in case RC No. 1(E)/97-
EOW-1/ Delhi dated 11.3.1997, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read
with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
During the course of trial he sought permission to go abroad in
relation to his vocation, which though was dismissed by the trial court but
granted by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2005 subject to his furnishing
bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs with a stipulation to return back to India on or
before October 17,2005. The said surety in the shape of bank guarantee was
furnished by the petitioner and as undertaken he returned back to India
within the time limit.
Yet the petitioner filed another application seeking his
exemption from personal appearance during trial on the ground that since he
is working as Professor in Florida College of Business and Accounting,
Orlando, Florida, USA, it is not possible for him to attend each and every
date of hearing. This Court vide order dated 27.3.2009 exempted his
personal appearance subject to certain conditions, including depositing of
Rs.10 lacs with the trial Court, an affidavit undertaking forfeiture of the said
2
amount in case of his non-appearance on a date his presence is required by
the Court and an affidavit that his house situated at Mani Majra shall vest in
the State in case he did not return to India, which the petitioner fulfilled.
Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the bank guarantee
furnished by him while going abroad has to be released since he complied
with the orders in letter and spirit and the learned trial Court as well as
revisional Court have gone wrong in dismissing his prayer made in this
regard by observing that since both the sureties are for difference purposes,
therefore, the bank guarantee of Rs.5 lacs cannot be released.
No reply has been filed by the CBI.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the paper book carefully.
Order dated 19.9.2005, pursuant to which the bank guarantee
was furnished, was admittedly complied with by the petitioner and he
returned to India and lateron his personal appearance was exempted subject
to his depositing hefty amount of Rs.10 lacs, besides giving up rights in his
house situated at Mani Majra in case of any breach on his part. The purpose
of imposing the conditions of sureties upon the petitioner was to ensure his
presence before the trial court and return of the petitioner back to India, as
and when required by the Court. Both the Courts below have misconstrued
in declining the prayer of the petitioner made in this regard. There seems to
be no plausible reason to retain the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. Even otherwise there is no serious dispute
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI to the prayer made by the
petitioner.
In view of this, the instant petition is allowed. Orders dated
25.4.2009 and 4.5.2009 are set aside and it is directed that the bank
guarantee of Rs.5 lacs, as furnished by the petitioner, be released to him, as
per rules.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
August 6,2009
Jiten