$-21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1203/2011 £ LAVINA GUPTA Petitioner Through:Mr. SudhirNandrajog,Sr. Advocatewith Mr.Anil KumarSangaland Mr. D.P. Mohanty,Advs versus CBI Respondent Through:Mr.HarishGulatiand Mr. AnindyaMalhotra, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT ORDER % 14.07.2011 1. Vide orderdated 12.07.2010the petitionerwas grantedbail by this Courtwhile imposing condition that the petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of 11,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactionofthe concerned court. Further,that the petitionershall not leave the countrywithoutprior permission of the trial court and that she shall not in any manner interferewith the investigations and influence the witness. 2. Mr. SudhirNandrajog,learned Senior Counsel for the petitionersubmitsthat the applicant/accusedwas arrestedon 29.04.2010. She was grantedbail on 04.06.2010. No chargesheethas yet beenfiled bythe CBI. 3. Further, he submitsthat there are absolutelyno restrictionsimposed on other two co-accusedto go abroad includingthe main accused who is a public servant, namely,Shri RadheyShyam Sharmain theirbail orderdated29.06.2010passedby the Signing Date:31.08.2024 17:26:12 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified f J' trial court. Furthersubmits,the applicanthas alreadytravelledabroad on 27.10.2010 to 03.11.2010with the permissionofthe learnedSpecialJudge, CBI vide order dated 21.09.2010. The applicantnevermisusedthe concessiongrantedby the court and she alwayscooperatedwith the prosecutionand there is no complaintofmisuseof interim bail/bailsgranted to her. The petitionerhas sought following reliefs by filing the present petition: (a) To dispensewith the restrictioncontainedin the Bail Order dated 12.07.2010 that the applicant 'shall not leave the country without prior permissionofthe trial court'. (b) To directthe CBI to permanentlyrelease/returnthe Passportofthe applicantto her. 4. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the husband of the petitioneris a technocratand is in the business of manufacturingthe bullet proof jacketsand othersecurityrelatedequipmentsand the petitioneris alsoatechnocratand is aqualifiedengineer. Sinceshe helps her husbandin the business,therefore,she has to go abroad frequently. 5. Since,qua the two accused,namely,Shri RadheyShyamSharmaand Shri R.K. Gupta, bail was granted by the trial court without imposing any such conditions. Therefore,he is seekingthe same conditionsto be imposedon the petitioneralso. 6. Accordingly,he furthersubmitsthatorderdated 12.07.2010be also modifiedto the extentthat the petitionercan leavethe countrywithoutthe priorpermissionofthe court. 7. On parity,I modifythe orderdated 04.06.2010and orderdated 12.07.2010and grant prayer (a) and (b) in favour of Petitioner,subject to the petitionerfurnishing itineraryofthe tourgoingabroadbeforethe learnedtrialjudgeat leastone weekbefore leavingIndia. The petitionershallalso reportto thetrialcourton arrivalfrom abroad. 8. Crl. M.C.No. 1203/2011is disposedof in the aforesaidterms. 9. A copy ofthisorderbegivendasti. SURESH KAIT,J JULY 14,2011 RS