CRM-M-32708 208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA ASHISH GUPTA CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.1 None for Respondent No. 2. ROHIT KAPOOR, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for quashing the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P the petitioner has of an FDR, which is approximately allowing the application for travelling abroad. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to travel abroad with hi 30.06.2026, subject to Court vide the aforementioned order, except the impugned condition. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 behalf of the said respondent, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to 32708-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision: 05.06.2026 ASHISH GUPTA Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate (through VC) for respondent No.1-CBI. None for Respondent No. 2. ***** ROHIT KAPOOR, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for quashing the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P the petitioner has inter alia been directed to deposit of an FDR, which is approximately 7.5% of the alleged defaulted amount, while allowing the application for travelling abroad. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to travel abroad with hi 30.06.2026, subject to the compliance of all the conditions imposed by the CBI Court vide the aforementioned order, except the impugned condition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 e said respondent, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32708-2026 Date of decision: 05.06.2026 ....Petitioner CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ...Respondents ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate (through VC) The instant petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for quashing the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), to the extent, been directed to deposit Rs. 4.95 Crores in the form 7.5% of the alleged defaulted amount, while allowing the application for travelling abroad. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to travel abroad with his daughter from 09.06.2026 to all the conditions imposed by the CBI Court vide the aforementioned order, except the impugned condition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-CBI has filed the reply on e said respondent, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to -1- ....Petitioner ...Respondents The instant petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the 1), to the extent, Rs. 4.95 Crores in the form 7.5% of the alleged defaulted amount, while allowing the application for travelling abroad. Further prayer has been made to s daughter from 09.06.2026 to all the conditions imposed by the CBI CBI has filed the reply on e said respondent, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 tag the same at the appropriate place. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the b for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the petitioner co-accused stands implicated in FIR No.RC0512022S0007 dated 31.10.2022, registered at police station CBI, with section 120 of Corruption Ac 4. It transpires that the petitioner was the director of the co company M/s Goldline Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘GIPL term loan of Rs.25 crores from respondent No.2 reduced to Rs.19 crores, for construction of an affordable residential project. As per the allegations, the term loan was sanctioned on 20.12.2014, and an amount of Rs.18.97 crores was disbursed by the Bank between 28.02.2015 to 25.06.2015. Upon failure of the company to repay the loan, the same was declared as a Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’) on 29.05.2018 and as ‘ Bank. 5. It is construction of the project to sister concerns. Further allegation namely M/s Aerens shops as additional security/collateral claiming th However, it was subsequently discovered that an agreement to sell qua the said shops had already been executed by the corporate guarantor/mortgagor in favour of one Mrs. Usha Gupta. A civil suit had already been initiated by Mrs. Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the year 2013, 32708-2026 tag the same at the appropriate place. Shorn of unnecessary details, the b for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the petitioner stands implicated in FIR No.RC0512022S0007 dated 31.10.2022, registered at police station CBI, SCB/CHD, registered with section 120-B IPC, and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (subsequently deleted). It transpires that the petitioner was the director of the co company M/s Goldline Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘GIPL term loan of Rs.25 crores from respondent No.2 reduced to Rs.19 crores, for construction of an affordable residential project. As per the allegations, the term loan was sanctioned on 20.12.2014, and an amount of Rs.18.97 crores was disbursed by the Bank between 28.02.2015 to 25.06.2015. on failure of the company to repay the loan, the same was declared as a Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’) on 29.05.2018 and as ‘ It is alleged that the amount of loan was not used for the construction of the project and rather the funds were siphoned off and transferred to sister concerns. Further allegations are that corporate guarantor namely M/s Aerens Goldsouk International Limited (‘AGIL’) had pledged 5 shops as additional security/collateral claiming th However, it was subsequently discovered that an agreement to sell qua the said shops had already been executed by the corporate guarantor/mortgagor in favour of one Mrs. Usha Gupta. A civil suit had already been initiated by Mrs. Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the year 2013, Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts required to be noticed for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the petitioner alongwith other stands implicated in FIR No.RC0512022S0007 dated 31.10.2022, registered under sections 420 read and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention t, 1988 (subsequently deleted). It transpires that the petitioner was the director of the co-accused company M/s Goldline Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘GIPL’), which had obtained a term loan of Rs.25 crores from respondent No.2-Bank, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.19 crores, for construction of an affordable residential project. As per the allegations, the term loan was sanctioned on 20.12.2014, and an amount of Rs.18.97 crores was disbursed by the Bank between 28.02.2015 to 25.06.2015. on failure of the company to repay the loan, the same was declared as a Non Performing Asset (‘NPA’) on 29.05.2018 and as ‘fraud’ on 16.01.2021, by the alleged that the amount of loan was not used for the and rather the funds were siphoned off and transferred that corporate guarantor/mortgagor Goldsouk International Limited (‘AGIL’) had pledged 5 shops as additional security/collateral claiming the same to be unencumbered. However, it was subsequently discovered that an agreement to sell qua the said shops had already been executed by the corporate guarantor/mortgagor in favour of one Mrs. Usha Gupta. A civil suit had already been initiated by Mrs. Usha Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the year 2013, -2- rief facts required to be noticed with other stands implicated in FIR No.RC0512022S0007 dated 31.10.2022, under sections 420 read and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention accused ), which had obtained a subsequently reduced to Rs.19 crores, for construction of an affordable residential project. As per the allegations, the term loan was sanctioned on 20.12.2014, and an amount of Rs.18.97 crores was disbursed by the Bank between 28.02.2015 to 25.06.2015. on failure of the company to repay the loan, the same was declared as a Non- ’ on 16.01.2021, by the alleged that the amount of loan was not used for the and rather the funds were siphoned off and transferred mortgagor Goldsouk International Limited (‘AGIL’) had pledged 5 e same to be unencumbered. However, it was subsequently discovered that an agreement to sell qua the said shops had already been executed by the corporate guarantor/mortgagor in favour Usha Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the year 2013, RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 however the said factum was concealed, when the term loan was sanctioned in favour of GIPL. condition that G the project, before disbursal of funds, however no such amount was raised. 6. It further transpires that quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedi which notice regarding stay has been issued and the matter is for 20.07.2026. 7. The way of the instant petition 1) passed by the Special Duty Magistrate, CBI Court, wherein No.IA/42/2026 filed by countries including Switzerland, France, UK and Italy, to the fulfillment of are extracted hereunder for the facility of reference 32708-2026 however the said factum was concealed, when the term loan was sanctioned in favour of GIPL. One of the prerequisites for sanctioning of the term loan was a condition that GIPL should raise an amount of Rs.6 crores for the construction of the project, before disbursal of funds, however no such amount was raised. It further transpires that the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedi which notice regarding stay has been issued and the matter is for 20.07.2026. The immediate cause for the petitioner to approach this Court by the instant petition, arises from the order dated 30.0 passed by the Special Duty Magistrate, CBI Court, wherein No.IA/42/2026 filed by him, seeking permission to go abroad and visit countries including Switzerland, France, UK and Italy, to the fulfillment of certain conditions, including the impugned condition, which are extracted hereunder for the facility of reference however the said factum was concealed, when the term loan was sanctioned in ne of the prerequisites for sanctioning of the term loan was a IPL should raise an amount of Rs.6 crores for the construction of the project, before disbursal of funds, however no such amount was raised. the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings in CRM-M-10347-2025, in which notice regarding stay has been issued and the matter is admittedly pending for the petitioner to approach this Court by arises from the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P passed by the Special Duty Magistrate, CBI Court, wherein the application , seeking permission to go abroad and visit various countries including Switzerland, France, UK and Italy, has been allowed, subject including the impugned condition, which are extracted hereunder for the facility of reference:- -3- however the said factum was concealed, when the term loan was sanctioned in ne of the prerequisites for sanctioning of the term loan was a IPL should raise an amount of Rs.6 crores for the construction of the petitioner has approached this Court for 2025, in pending for the petitioner to approach this Court by Annexure P- application various has been allowed, subject including the impugned condition, which RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 8. The purported reason for is to explore the opportunities and make arrangements for the higher studies of his daughter. Perusal of the order passed by the impugned condition of the deposit of Rs.4.95 crores in the form of FDR has been imposed on the ground that right to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed in accordance with The past travel history was specifically noticed and it was held that a consistent pattern of frequent and repeated international travel would indicate that the 32708-2026 The purported reason for the petitioner’s v is to explore the opportunities and make arrangements for the higher studies of daughter. Perusal of the order passed by the impugned condition of the deposit of Rs.4.95 crores in the form of FDR has been imposed on the ground that right to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed in accordance with The past travel history was specifically noticed and it was held that a consistent pattern of frequent and repeated international travel would indicate that the the petitioner’s visit to foreign countries, is to explore the opportunities and make arrangements for the higher studies of daughter. Perusal of the order passed by the CBI Court would reveal that the impugned condition of the deposit of Rs.4.95 crores in the form of FDR has been imposed on the ground that right to travel abroad is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed in accordance with law. The past travel history was specifically noticed and it was held that a consistent pattern of frequent and repeated international travel would indicate that the -4- isit to foreign countries, is to explore the opportunities and make arrangements for the higher studies of Court would reveal that the impugned condition of the deposit of Rs.4.95 crores in the form of FDR has been imposed on the ground that right to travel abroad is not absolute and is law. The past travel history was specifically noticed and it was held that a consistent pattern of frequent and repeated international travel would indicate that the RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 petitioner has been enjoying a lifestyle involving substantial financial expenditure on su upon an order CM-14725-CWP others’, while 9. A learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has primarily assailed the imposition of the impugned condition on the ground that such a pre upon the fundamental right of the unproven allegation being established, which is presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Submission is that on 31.10.2025 and has not been adjudicated or established by any Court Treating such disputed, contested, and unproved allegation as the basis of computation of a mandatory financial deposit, is patently illegal. The attention the Court is drawn to a chart at page 11 of the valuation of the more than Rs.37 crores, i.e. almost the double of the amount of the term loan. 10. It is argued that undisputedly the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal and all secured assets, projects have been taken over Professionals. Reference is made to the ear 02.08.2024 and 15.05.2025 passed by the CBI Court demonstrate that the petitioner had to medical reasons 32708-2026 petitioner has been enjoying a lifestyle involving substantial financial expenditure on such international travel and luxurious stay upon an order dated 12.09.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2024 in CWP-5091-2024, ‘ while imposing the impugned condition. Although various submissions have been advanced, however learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has primarily assailed the imposition of the impugned condition on the ground that such a pre the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel abroad, tantamount unproven allegation being established, which is presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Submission is that the figure of Rs.66.48 crores is t on 31.10.2025 and has not been adjudicated or established by any Court reating such disputed, contested, and unproved allegation as the basis of computation of a mandatory financial deposit, is patently illegal. The attention the Court is drawn to a chart at page 11 of the valuation of the primary security, as per the own assessment of the Bank was more than Rs.37 crores, i.e. almost the double of the amount of the term loan. It is argued that undisputedly the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal and all secured assets, projects have been taken over Professionals. Reference is made to the ear and 15.05.2025 passed by the CBI Court that the petitioner had on earlier occasions to medical reasons and for educational visit alongwith his petitioner has been enjoying a lifestyle involving substantial financial ch international travel and luxurious stay. Reliance was placed dated 12.09.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in , ‘Surender Gupta vs. UOI and imposing the impugned condition. lthough various submissions have been advanced, however learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has primarily assailed the imposition of the impugned condition on the ground that such a pre-condition petitioner to travel abroad, tantamounts to the unproven allegation being established, which is ex facie contrary to the presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. figure of Rs.66.48 crores is the Bank’s unilateral claim as on 31.10.2025 and has not been adjudicated or established by any Court reating such disputed, contested, and unproved allegation as the basis of computation of a mandatory financial deposit, is patently illegal. The attention the Court is drawn to a chart at page 11 of the paper book, to contend that the , as per the own assessment of the Bank was more than Rs.37 crores, i.e. almost the double of the amount of the term loan. It is argued that undisputedly the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal and all secured assets, projects have been taken over by the Resolution Professionals. Reference is made to the earlier orders dated 20.04.2024 and 15.05.2025 passed by the CBI Court, (Annexure P-11 (colly.) to on earlier occasions also travelled abroad due educational visit alongwith his minor daughter, and -5- petitioner has been enjoying a lifestyle involving substantial financial . Reliance was placed dated 12.09.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Surender Gupta vs. UOI and lthough various submissions have been advanced, however, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has primarily assailed the condition to the contrary to the presumption of innocence enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. he Bank’s unilateral claim as on 31.10.2025 and has not been adjudicated or established by any Court. reating such disputed, contested, and unproved allegation as the basis of computation of a mandatory financial deposit, is patently illegal. The attention of , to contend that the , as per the own assessment of the Bank was It is argued that undisputedly the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal the Resolution lier orders dated 20.04.2024, ) to also travelled abroad due and RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 had returned back each time, despite the fact that ever imposed. It is especially on account of the fact that he has deep roots in the society and his family and aged parents reside in the country. It is further pointed out that the learned CBI court has recently granted permission to the co travel abroad, without the deposit of such a huge amount permission as illusory and is punitive in nature. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in and antoher, (2021) (2013) 15 SCC 570 (Criminal) 775 Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & another, 2025: in support of the above arguments. 11. Per contra No.1-CBI, has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf petitioner and has argued that the orders to travel abroad are in the nature of a discretionary relief and the court has ample powers to impose conditions as may be deemed necessary, so as to secure the presence of the accused that right to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with law. It is pointed out that undisputedly the petitioner has undertaken multiple leisure trips to abroad in the past and therefore the condit the defaulted amount and the said condition would ensure that the petitioner does not abscond and evade the process of law 32708-2026 had returned back each time, despite the fact that . It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not a on account of the fact that he has deep roots in the society and his and aged parents reside in the country. It is further pointed out that the learned CBI court has recently granted permission to the co travel abroad, without imposing any such condition the deposit of such a huge amount as a pre permission as illusory and is punitive in nature. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dilip Sin and antoher, (2021) 2 SCC 779, Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi (2013) 15 SCC 570 and Feroze Basha Vs. State (Criminal) 775 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court i Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & another, 2025: in support of the above arguments. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent CBI, has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf petitioner and has argued that the orders to travel abroad are in the nature of a discretionary relief and the court has ample powers to impose conditions as may be deemed necessary, so as to secure the presence of the accused ght to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with law. It is pointed out that undisputedly the petitioner has undertaken multiple leisure trips to abroad in the past and therefore the condition regarding deposit of 4.95 crores is the defaulted amount and the said condition would ensure that the petitioner does not abscond and evade the process of law had returned back each time, despite the fact that no such onerous condition was that the petitioner is not a flight ri on account of the fact that he has deep roots in the society and his and aged parents reside in the country. It is further pointed out that the learned CBI court has recently granted permission to the co-accused Amit Gupta, imposing any such condition. It is argued that directing as a pre-condition to travel, renders the permission as illusory and is punitive in nature. Reliance is placed upon the lip Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2 SCC 779, Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi Feroze Basha Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2026(2) RCR of the Bombay High Court in Ketan V. Parik Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India & another, 2025:BHC-AS:49369 , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent CBI, has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has argued that the orders to travel abroad are in the nature of a discretionary relief and the court has ample powers to impose conditions as may be deemed necessary, so as to secure the presence of the accused. Submission is ght to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with law. It is pointed out that undisputedly the petitioner has undertaken multiple leisure trips to abroad in the past and ion regarding deposit of 4.95 crores is commensurate with the defaulted amount and the said condition would ensure that the petitioner does not abscond and evade the process of law. It is argued that in all economic -6- onerous condition was flight risk, on account of the fact that he has deep roots in the society and his and aged parents reside in the country. It is further pointed out that the accused Amit Gupta, . It is argued that directing condition to travel, renders the permission as illusory and is punitive in nature. Reliance is placed upon the gh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2 SCC 779, Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi of Tamilnadu, 2026(2) RCR V. Parik AS:49369 , learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent of the petitioner and has argued that the orders to travel abroad are in the nature of a discretionary relief and the court has ample powers to impose conditions as may . Submission is ght to travel abroad is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with law. It is pointed out that undisputedly the petitioner has undertaken multiple leisure trips to abroad in the past and commensurate with the defaulted amount and the said condition would ensure that the petitioner . It is argued that in all economic RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 offences, particularly bank fraud, ther accused. It is further contended that although such condition, was not imposed in the past, however, in view of the fact that convincing reasons for forthcoming, and the risk of the petitione the trial, the decision of the competent court to impose such a condition cannot be faulted. The observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the application moved in the case of Pandher Vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM 11.10.2021, are highlighted to canvas the court concerned shall have to be circumspect while granting permission to travel abroad. 32708-2026 offences, particularly bank fraud, there is inherent flight risk involved with the accused. It is further contended that although such condition, was not imposed in the past, however, in view of the fact that convincing reasons for forthcoming, and the risk of the petitioner absconding increases at the stage of the trial, the decision of the competent court to impose such a condition cannot be faulted. The observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the application moved in the case of Surinder Gupta Pandher Vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM 11.10.2021, are highlighted to canvass that during pendency of a criminal case, the court concerned shall have to be circumspect while granting permission to e is inherent flight risk involved with the accused. It is further contended that although such condition, was not imposed in the past, however, in view of the fact that convincing reasons for travel are not r absconding increases at the stage of the trial, the decision of the competent court to impose such a condition cannot be faulted. The observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the Surinder Gupta and Dalbir Singh Pandher Vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-42836-2021, decided on that during pendency of a criminal case, the court concerned shall have to be circumspect while granting permission to -7- e is inherent flight risk involved with the accused. It is further contended that although such condition, was not imposed travel are not r absconding increases at the stage of the trial, the decision of the competent court to impose such a condition cannot be faulted. The observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the Dalbir Singh , decided on that during pendency of a criminal case, the court concerned shall have to be circumspect while granting permission to RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 32708-2026 -8- RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 32708-2026 -9- RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32708 05.06.2026 Mohitgoya /raj Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 32708-2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -10 (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No 10- RAJ KUMAR 2026.06.06 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document