IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 3276 of 2024 --- Ramneek Singh @ Jimmy @ Rammeek Singh S/o Late Satpal Singh, R/o H. No. 1576 F/F, Naveen Shahdara, PO Shahdara, PS Sahadra, Dist. New Delhi Pin 110032, Erstwhile at House No. A-646A, Palam VIhar, PO & PS Palam Vihar, Dist. Gurugram (Haryana) 122017 … … Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation … … Opposite Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : M/s. R. S. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate, Rajeev Kumar Sinha & Vishnu Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI --- 5/06.01.2025 Heard Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the CBI. This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. cum Spl. J. M. (CBI) Dhanbad in connection with R. C. Case No. 06/2016/CBI/EOW/Ranchi wherein the permission which has been sought for by the petitioner from the learned trial court to visit Bangkok (Thailand) on account of his entire family staying there and he is currently running a restaurant at Bangkok has been rejected. Submission has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in course of investigation has duly cooperated with the CBI and there was no occasion of any complaint against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that after the institution of the case, the petitioner has settled the accounts with the investors. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the entire family of the petitioner resides at Bangkok and the petitioner has a work permit which enables him to run a restaurant at Bangkok itself. It has also been submitted that prior to submission of a supplementary charge- sheet against the petitioner, the petitioner had regularly visited Bangkok at least on 30 occasions and even after he was granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 6550 of 2024, he has returned back and surrendered within -2- the time specified by the court. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid facts clearly indicates that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and therefore prays that permission be allowed to the petitioner to travel to Bangkok. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI appearing for the CBI has submitted that though no counter affidavit has been filed by him in terms of the order dated 04.12.2024, but he has primarily referred to the allegations levelled against the petitioner which led to submission of charge-sheet and since the trial is at its nascent stage, it is not viable to grant permission to the petitioner to travel to Bangkok. It is the specific case of the petitioner which gains credence from the supplementary affidavit that since the year 2010 for most of the period, he has resided at Bangkok for his livelihood and he has also married in 2014 with a Thai national. It is the further case of the petitioner that his children also stay at Bangkok and the petitioner has a work permit on the dint of which he runs a restaurant. The petitioner therefore claims that in order to sustain himself as his livelihood is dependent upon the restaurant itself which is running at Bangkok, he be given permission to travel to Bangkok. In the case of “Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another” reported in (2020) 10 SCC 77, it has been held as follows: “25. Having regard to the genesis of the dispute as well as the issue as to whether the appellant is likely to flee from justice if he were to be permitted to travel to the US, we find, on the basis of the previous record of the appellant, that there is no reason or justification to deny him the permission which has been sought to travel to the US for eight weeks. The appellant is an Indian citizen and holds an Indian passport. While it is true that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant, that, in our view, should not in itself prevent him from travelling to the US, where he is a resident since 1985, particularly when it has been drawn to the attention of the High Court and this Court that serious consequences would ensue in terms of the invalidation of the Green Card if the appellant were not permitted to travel. The record indicates the large amount of litigation between the family of the appellant and the complainant. Notwithstanding or perhaps because of this, the appellant has frequently travelled between the US and India even after the filing of the complaint and the FIR. We accordingly are of the view that the application for modification was incorrectly rejected by the -3- High Court and the appellant ought to have been allowed to travel to the US for a period of eight weeks. 26. We accordingly permit the appellant to do so, subject to his furnishing an undertaking to this Court before the date of travel that he will return to India after the expiry of a period of eight weeks and that he shall be available on all dates of hearing before the court of criminal jurisdiction, unless specifically exempted from personal appearance. The undertaking shall be filed in this Court before the appellant undertakes travel. On the return of the appellant after eight weeks and if it becomes necessary for him to travel to the US, the appellant shall apply to the court concerned for permission to travel and any such application shall be considered on its own merits by the competent court. The appellant shall travel only upon the grant of permission and subject to the terms imposed. The passport of the appellant shall be handed over to the appellant to facilitate his travel, subject to the condition that he shall deposit it with the investigating officer immediately on his return.” The petitioner has been able to show by this application as well as by various affidavits filed by him that there is a necessity for the petitioner to travel to Bangkok on account of his entire family staying there as also on account of the restaurant which he is running and which according to him is the only source of his livelihood. It also appears that there is no complaint against the petitioner of not having cooperated with the investigation and in fact after been granted anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 6550 of 2024 on 04.10.2024, the petitioner who was at that point of time in Bangkok had returned back and surrendered within the time specified by the court which would further strengthen the fact that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and is ready to face the trial. So far as the stage of the case, as noted by the learned trial court in its order dated 14.11.2024 is concerned, the case is pending at the stage of appearance. It also appears that apart from two school going children of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner who is aged about 63 years is also residing at Bangkok which would further enhance the claim of the petitioner that his entire family is residing at Bangkok. On consideration of the aforesaid facts therefore, the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. cum Spl. J. M. (CBI) Dhanbad in connection with R. C. Case No. 06/2016/CBI/EOW/Ranchi is hereby set aside and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad for a period of 3 months, subject to his furnishing -4- an undertaking before the learned trial court giving the details of his date of travel and return to India after the said period as noted above. On the return of the petitioner within the period specified, if it becomes necessary for the petitioner to travel to Bangkok again, he shall apply before the learned trial court and such application shall be considered on its own merits by the concerned court. This application accordingly stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Pending I.A., if any stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3