Crl.MC 3098/2010 Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 13th December, 2010 Date of Order: December 20, 2010 + Crl. MC No.3098/2010 % 20.12.2010 Sukhdev Dhillon ...Petitioner Versus State ...Respondent Counsels: Mr. T.A. Mir for petitioner. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking leave of the Court to go abroad. 2. The petitioner is involved in a case of cheating to the tune of several crore of rupees. He was granted regular bail by the Court with the condition that he shall not leave the country without permission of the court. The petitioner has moved an application before the trial court seeking leave of the court to go to Ethiopia in connection with his business. The contention of the petitioner is that he was director of Mega Farm Private Limited and he needed to go to Ethiopia in concern with the business of his company regarding farming. 3. The facts of the case shows that the petitioner had floated a company in India of Radiocabs Services and got financed 103 Radio cabs from Kotak Mahindra Bank. However, after getting these cars financed from Kotak Mahindra, the petitioner did not Crl.MC 3098/2010 Page 2 Of 2 pay the installments. The petitioner was also supposed to get the cars fitted with GPS/GRS Test trekking device so that the location of the cars could be traced. Out of 104 cars, the petitioner did not fix this device on 97 radio taxies with the result that the complainant could not locate and trek the vehicles. The post-dated cheques issued by the petitioner for payment of installment got bounced. The petitioner did not pay any heed to the demands of complainant and as a result of this the complainant had approached the court and repossessed 74 vehicles. It was also found that despite there being flow of cash received in Citi Bank account number 0802254229 of the petitioner, he did not honour financial liabilities towards complainant with the result that the petitioner caused loss of about Rs. 4 crore of rupees to complainant. 4. Looking into all these facts, I consider that there is every possibility of the petitioner running away from the jurisdiction of the court unless the petitioner is made to give a proper security for his return. The petition of the petitioner is allowed if the petitioner furnishes a security of Rs.3.5 crore of immovable properties or bank guarantee with the trial court. In case the petitioner gives security of Rs.3.5 crore in the form of immovable property of bank guarantee, the property may belong to him or to any of his relative or friend, the petitioner may proceed to Ethiopia in respect of his business. However, the trial court shall verify the title deeds of immovable property before accepting the surety bond. The surety shall be given by submitting original title deeds of the property and an undertaking of the owner of the property that in case the petitioner does not return back, the court shall be at liberty to get the property sealed and realize the amount. The valuation of the property shall also be filed along with surety bonds. 5. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. December 20, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd