Mukul Bhatia v. State

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2754/2019 MUKUL BHATIA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Mr. Prnjal Shekhar and Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP with SI Gaurav, P.S. Rani Bagh

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

O R D E R

% 15.11.2019 Vide the present petition the petitioner seeks direction to remove the restriction imposed by the petitioner to seek permission of the Court every time to go abroad in case FIR No.942/2014 dated 12.12.2014 registered at Police Station Rani Bagh for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

The case of the petitioner is that he had no role to play in the transaction in question and his name was mechanically included in the FIR as he was one of the erstwhile Director of the company. He did not sign any of the bounced cheques in question and has never interacted in any manner with regard to the business and operations of the company with the de facto complainant. More so, a thorough reading of the FIR does not reveal in any manner the involvement of

the Petitioner in the alleged offence as to what role was played by him. However, no charge- sheet has been filed till date. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that the charge sheet has been filed on 08.11.2019 in the prosecution, however not filed before the Court. The order in question is dated 03.06.2016 and thereafter the petitioner had already visited four times abroad and timely reported as per the directions of the Court. It is undisputed that there no condition is imposed upon Amratya Dutta Gupta, co-accused, whereas this condition has been imposed upon the petitioner.

Since the presence case is of 2016 and even charge sheet has not reached to the concerned Court, therefore, I modify the said condition. He shall inform every time to the concerned IO/SHO and provide his address of stay in abroad with itinerary. The petition stands disposed of.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J NOVEMBER 15, 2019 Aj