Sri. Sunil Modi @ Sunil Kumar Modi vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Learned Special Public Prosecutor filed the objection statement to the petition which is taken on record.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.33 filed under Section 439 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. seeking modification of the conditions of

the bail order and seeking permission for permitting him to go abroad to make out his livelihood whenever occasions arises in the interest of justice

and equity.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.33 and also learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the

respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that referring to the earlier bail orders and also the conditions imposed by the Court

that he has to mark his attendance before the concerned police on every 3rd Saturday. Subsequently, same came to be relaxed making him to

appear before the concerned Court on the adjourned dates and not necessary to mark his attendance before the police on 3rd Saturday of every

month.

The further submission of the learned counsel is that subsequently I.A.No.131 was filed before concerned Special Court seeking modification of

the bail conditions and permission for the petitioner/accused No.33 to travel abroad to make his livelihood. The learned counsel submitted that the

said application came to be rejected. It is his submission that the accused No.33 has set up his business in the foreign country. Therefore, it is

necessary for him to travel abroad in order to make out his livelihood.

The learned counsel submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner/accused No.33 on all the previous occasions, he appeared before

the concerned Court and not remained absent and comply the orders of the Court. Hence, he submitted that conducting and concluding the trial

may take long time. The criminal proceedings are challenged before this Court and some of the accused got stay in the criminal proceedings.

Hence, he submitted that in view of these factual matters, the concerned Court ought to have allowed the application - I.A.No.131 and ought to

have permitted the petitioner/accused No.33 to travel abroad and the same has been wrongly rejected by the Court below. Hence, he prays to

allow the petition and grant the relief as prayed in the petition.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition contending that the offences alleged are serious in nature, wherein, the

petitioner/accused No.33 is also one of the accused. On earlier occasions, the concerned Court has permitted him to travel abroad even

intermittently. He was allowed to travel abroad for more than six months also in some occasions, he made the submission that repeatedly he cannot

seek permission when he has involved in such criminal case. He has to be here for appearing in the jurisdictional Court to face the trial in the Court.

The Special Public Prosecutor also made the submission that the order passed by the Court below on the I.A.No.131 is not at all challenged in

the petition. But, this petition is only for seeking permission to travel abroad. Hence, he submitted that the concerned Court considered the

application in a proper way and observed that it is not necessary to give permission often times and the Court assigned the cogent reasons in

rejecting the application. Hence, he submitted that in view of these materials, it is not necessary to allow the petition and permit the

petitioner/accused No.33 to travel abroad.

I have perused the grounds urged in the petition so also the order passed by the Court below dated 17.11.2017 in Spl. C.C.No.105/2014 on

the application - I.A.No.131 and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and both sides at the Bar.

Looking to the offences alleged against petitioner/accused No.33 under Sections 120-B, 420, 379, 411 and 477 of IPC, Sections 13 (2) read

with Sections 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 21 read with Sections 4 (1), 4(1) (A) and Section 23 of Mines and

Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

Perusing the order of the Court below on the said application on all the previous applications, the Court considered the prayer of the petitioner

herein for traveling abroad and even on some occasions, he was permitted to travel abroad for more than six months etc.

But, looking to the reasons adopted by the Court below, more particularly at Para 13 of the said order, the Court has discussed that why he

cannot be permitted to travel abroad at this time. The Court has also expressed its opinion that there is even possibilities for escaping and even it

becomes very difficult to proceed with the trial of the matter. Therefore, considering these aspects of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the

observations made by the concerned Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby

rejected.

Since, the main petition is disposed of, the question of considering the application for interim permission does not arise. Accordingly,

I.A.No.1/2017 is also hereby disposed of.