Sanjay Kumar Patwari vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

This application has been filed by the petitioner for relaxation and/or modification and/or variation and/or waiver of the conditions of bail granted to the

petitioner vide order dated July 13, 2016 passed by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Calcutta, in connection with R.C. Case

No.15 of 2014 (CBI Case No.125 of 2017) under Sections 120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 inter alia on the effect that the petitioner shall

not leave the country without the permission of the Court. Hence this application. The petitioner has prayed for permission to leave India to travel

abroad in the countries namely, Netherland, Germany and Greece as per itinerary mentioned in paragraph 19 of the petition.

It is in the context that the petitioner has received invitation to visit abroad as countries authorized representative vide invitation request dated 7th May,

2018 which reflects that the petitioner has been requested to accord the consent to visit Germany and Greece for the period from May 16, 2018 to

20th June, 2018. Since the petitioner could not get the permission of the Court, he could not undertake the journey on 16th May, 2018 as per the

request by the company concerned. However, in paragraph 19, the petitioner has categorically pointed out that he is desirous to visit Amsterdam,

Netherland, Baden Baden, Titisee, Mykonos, Frankfurt all the cases belonging to the Germany and also to Mykonos and Athens situated in Greece as

per the proposed itinerary set out in paragraph 19 of this petition.

Mr. Ashraf Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submits photocopy of extradition treaties and points out that Greece is not within the

term of treaty with the Indian Government. That is to say the treaties pertaining to extradition treaties. On the contrary, the petitioner has submitted

the document of Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, which shows the list of extradition treaties currently in force with the countries as

it would appear that Germany, France, Neherland do have extradition treaties with the Indian Government. In so far as the place namely, Mykonos

and Athens are concerned they belong to the country called Greece. Obviously, there is no treaties with the Indian Government. In these two places in

Greece, the petitioner wants to travel from 27th May, 2018 to 31st May, 2018 and 31st May to 2nd June, 2018 as per the itinerary.

In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner submits by inviting my attention to an earlier order passed by this Court when this Court permitted

the petitioner to visit China and further pointed out that the petitioner reached China and has come back and there is no otherwise antecedent as

against the petitioner. Undoubtedly, the allegation against the petitioner is that there is involvement of several crores as alleged and on that

consideration this Court by order dated December 19, 2017 passed in CRM No. 12510 of 2017, was pleased to reject the prayer and against that order

the Hon’ble Apex Court was moved by the petitioner and the Hon’ble Court simply declined to interfere only on the score that since the

meeting that the petitione was desirous of attending is already over the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

However, the petitioner was given liberty to move fresh application for its consideration on his own merits without being influenced by the impugned

order. Mr. Ashraf Ali, learned advocate appearing for the CBI has drawn my attention to the earlier order passed on October 6, 2016 and submits that

if the permission is given to the petitioner certain conditions be imposed. The conditions were imposed vide order dated October 6, 2016 in CRM No.

8209 of 2016 may be reproduced as under:-

“(i) The petitioner herein shall be permitted to go abroad between 7th October, 2016 to 16th October, 2016 to Germany and Paris but not to

Hungary as there is no extradition treaty with the said country. During his stay, the petitioner shall report to the concerned Indian Consulate situated in

the country he is permitted to visit and the said Consulate shall certify the period of his stay in such country and such certificate/endorsement shall be

filed before this Court as well as before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata upon his return.

(ii) The petitioner shall be permitted to leave the country only upon his furnishing the original title deeds before the Court of the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in respect of properties described in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit which are as follows:-

(1) More or less 1.63 acre, situated at Mednipur, Dist.- Mednipur Under Police Station- Jhargram, J.L. No. 731, Khatian No. 93 Dag No. 273/294. (2)

More or less 50 decimal, situated at Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur, Dist.- Paschim Medinipur under P.O. & P.S. Jhargram, MouzaJhangalkhag, J.L.

No. 395, Khatian No. 954, Dag No. 1619. The father of the petitioner namely, Sajjan Kumar Patwari shall also furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20 lakhs

to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata with two sureties of like amount. In the event such securities and bonds, as aforesaid,

are not furnished, the petitioner shall not be permitted to travel abroad.

(iii) Copies of the visas granted to the petitioner shall be submitted to the Investigating Officer of the case before travelling abroad. The petitioner shall

return to the country on 16th October, 2016 and within 24 hours of his return shall furnish an affidavit before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Kolkata enclosing the certificates/endorsements of the appropriate Indian Consulate as to the period of stay in the aforesaid countries during his travel

abroad.

iv) The petitioner shall file supplementary affidavit placing on record necessary compliance of this order on the next date of hearing and an advance

copy thereof shall be supplied to the Central Bureau of Investigation by 3rd November, 2016. Learned advocate for the CBI is also directed to file its

report in that regard on the next date of hearing.â€​

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the direction to the petitioner to report to the concerned Indian Consulate situated in the countries

where the petitioner wish to visit would be onerous task for him and it will not be possible for him to travel in those places during the period as

mentioned in the itinerary at page 19 of this petition. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I find that because of the stay of

proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned charges could not be framed on supply of the copies to the accused person/petitioner. The

order as mentioned above reflects that the petitioner was earlier granted the privilege to visit abroad to attend business affairs of the company.

Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner shall be permitted to go abroad between the periods as per the itinerary as mentioned in paragraph 19

of the petition to the places as mentioned therein and further also permitted to visit two places in Greece upon the following conditions :-

i) That the father of the petitioner Sajjan Kumar Patwari shall present a personal bond of 20 ( Rupees twenty lakhs) to the satisfaction of the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate concerned where the R.C.Case is pending.

ii) That on his return the petitioner shall file a supplementary affidavit placing on record necessary compliance of this Court on June 27, 2018 before

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and also a supplementary affidavit to this Court in connection with this case with an advance copy on

being supplied to the CBI by the date fixed. List the matter under the same heading on June 27, 2018. Certified website copy of the order, if applied

for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.