9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /4 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ('MCOCA'). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ vide order dated 08.07.2023 had dismissed the application filed by him seeking permission to travel abroad to Dubai for 30 days for appointing a responsible person to look after his business, and prays that the impugned order be set aside and he be granted the permission to travel aboard for the said purpose. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present case, the petitioner himself had travelled back to India to join investigation out of his own free will. It is argued that the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were dropped against him by the learned ASJ vide order dated 10.04.2023 and he was granted anticipatory bail on 20.04.2023 while he was still in Dubai, UAE. It is also stated that the Look-Out Circular ('LOC') opened against the petitioner by the State/EOW was cancelled by the learned ASJ vide order dated 26.04.2023. It is submitted that after the petitioner had returned to India and joined investigation in present FIR, he was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 01.05.2023 and in the said ECIR also, he was released on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The impugned order dated 08.07.2023 passed by the learned ASJ, dismissing the applications seeking permission to travel abroad, reads as under: "...This is an application moved by accused Jai Prakash Singhal seeking permission to visit Dubai, UAE for 30 days period from 10.07.2023 to 09.08.2023. It is important to note that similar application with similar prayer has been moved in the matter of HD arising out of FIR No.54/202 . It is stated in the application that applicant is resident of Dubai and living there with his family since 14.08.2021 and this fact is not disputed. It is further stated that accused/applicant has been carrying out jewelry business there in Dubai and this fact has also not been disputed by prosecution. Thus, it is prayed that he may be permitted to travel to Dubai for enabling him to get into his jewelry business on track there in Dubai. Reference in the application has also been given that earlier applicant was granted anticipatory bail in FIR No.208/2021, thereupon he joined the investigation in the investigation of that ease. However later when he was staying in Taj Hotel , Income Tax Department as well as ED conducted search proceedings in the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oing to Dubai i .c. jewelry business of the applicant has been denied and disputed by the Agency, at this stage when lie may be required in the investigation of matter, no ease is made out for grant of permission to travel Dubai. Applications accordingly dismissed..." 8. In the present case, an FIR was registered against unknown persons by the Special Cell of Delhi Police under Sections 170/384/386/388/419/420/506/120B of IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000, on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant on 07.08.2021, regarding a call being received for extortion of money to the tune of Rs. 200 crores by unknown persons. A trap was laid and accused Pradeep Ramdanee @ Rajesh and Deepak Ramnani @ Rohit who used to collect cash from complainant on the instructions of Sukash Chandrashekhar were caught. On 08.08.2021, Special Cell of Delhi Police arrested main accused Sukash Chandrashekhar from Rohini Jail who had impersonated himself as a senior government officer and had extorted more than Rs. 200 crore from the complainant by luring her that government of India will solve all the issues relating to the business of her husband and would like to work with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the present petitioner is an international hawala operator based in Dubai. The petitioner had returned to India on 25.04.2023 after a period of two years, and he claimed that he was running a jewellery business in Dubai. A search was conducted under Section 17 of PMLA at the hotel room where the petitioner was staying, and from the digital devices recovered from him, various suspicious hawala transactions details were discovered, which are under investigation. The statement of petitioner was recorded in which he revealed that he had been involved in carrying out hawala transactions and had maintained their details in the tally software at his Dubai office. As per the case of Directorate of Enforcement, the petitioner has assisted Sukash Chandrashekhar in transferring Rs. 24 crore to Dubai out of the total of Rs. 31.5 crore received from complainant. Further, the petitioner has received proceeds of crime generated in the form of commission for transferring the proceeds of crime to Dubai. It is also stated that during investigation, it was revealed that the present petitioner used to provide the name and bank account details of 18 firms/companies in whose account the complainants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le he was granted anticipatory bail in the present FIR and regular bail in the present ECIR. In this Court's opinion, learned ASJ has rightly held that petitioner has not placed on record any cogent reason to travel abroad and that there is no permanent address of the petitioner in Dubai. Even before this Court, the petitioner has not been able to provide any cogent reason to travel abroad. Even if the petitioner has a business in Dubai, in this era of modern technology, he can operate his business from India and can also depute a person of his choice to look after his business, more so since his own major son is also looking after his business in Dubai. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of reasons stated in preceding paragraphs, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. 13. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. 14. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case 15. The judgment be uploa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
