Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009 Date of Decision : 11.12.2009 RITA SINGH ……Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pavan Narang, Advocate. Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION …… Respondent Through: Ms. Sonia Mathur, Advocate along with Inspector Satpal. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the CBI has handed over status report. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the CBI. 2. The learned Senior Counsel has confined his prayer for the present only to prayer „B‟ of the petition by virtue of which permission has been sought by the petitioner Rita Singh to travel abroad from 15.12.2009 to 20.12.2009 along with her daughter Natasha Singh so as to discuss the business matters with her prospective investors and bankers. 3. It has been contended by the learned Senior counsel that while enlarging the petitioner on bail, the learned Special Judge vide order dated 08.11.2004 had imposed a condition that Rita Singh Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009 Page 2 of 4 or Natasha Singh will always be in India and both of them will not travel out of country together without specific permission of the Court. It has been contended that as and when in the past such travel has been undertaken, requisite permission has been obtained from the learned Special Judge. It was also contended that last year while undertaking such a travel on 12.8.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner at that point of time had made a statement that the accused Rita Singh will not apply in future to travel along with her daughter. It has been urged that in the absence of such a statement, the permission would not have been granted to travel abroad. It is urged that this statement may not be taken against the petitioner to deny the consideration of her application in this regard. 4. The learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been contended that the conditions which have been imposed vide order dated 8.11.2004 may not be modified so as to enable the present petitioner to undertake the travel with her daughter because the petitioner along with other family members are involved in number of cases and therefore, the presence of one of them ought to be here in the country so as to put some moral pressure on the accused going abroad, to return back to the country. 5. I have considered the respective submissions. I feel as the permission had been granted to the petitioner to undertake the travel along with her daughter last year, there should be no impediment in permitting her to undertake a short travel to Hongkong as prayed by her from 15th to 20th December, 2009 subject to the condition that her husband Sh.J.K.Singh will not Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009 Page 3 of 4 apply for undertaking to travel outside the country during this period. This shall be further subject to the condition which have been imposed vide order dated 12.8.2008 which are enumerated below:- “1. That she shall furnish FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with an undertaking to report back in the Court before the next date of hearing in the learned Trial Court failing which the said amount shall stand forfeited without giving any further notice. 2. That she shall furnish itinerary and her address during her stay abroad. 3. That she shall not seek extension of her stay on any other ground including medical ground. 4. That she shall authorize her counsel for receiving notice on her behalf during her stay abroad and will file the acceptance of her counsel in this regard and the trial of the case shall not be got adjourned on account of absence of the petitioner. 5. That she shall produce her surety in the Court to give statement with regard to his no objection if applicant/accused is allowed to go abroad.” 6. It may be pertinent here to mention that no doubt last year when the order was passed on 12.8.2008, a statement was purported to have been made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that in future she will not apply, to undertake travel along with her daughter however, I do not consider that having made such a statement, that should act as an impediment and prevent her from applying to the Court to undertake the travel abroad in future at any given point of time subject to the conditions which the Court may like to impose. This is because it has been noticed number of times that the courts willingly or unwillingly suggest to the counsel that in case Crl. M.C. No.4218/2009 Page 4 of 4 the suggestion of the Court is not accepted favourably, the relief may not be given and thus the counsel at times make concessions on behalf of the client without any legal authorization. The purpose of restricting the right to movement of an accused should normally be actuated by two paramount considerations, one is that he does not flee from the processes of law and secondly that he should not undertake the travel to destroy the evidence. There is no such allegation or apprehension from the side of the respondents, that is why the application has been considered on merits rather than rejected on this flimsy technicality. 7. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 8. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master. V.K. SHALI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2009 RN