In a significant case related to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) on 115 crores money Laundering Case, the Delhi High Court refused to grant travel permission. The prayer for bail was for attending treatment of “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy”, as it was available in India, the court refused to grant permission to travel abroad.
Mandhir Singh TODD, the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court whereby the application for setting aside the look-out circular (LOC) issued at the behest of the complainant department and seeking permission to travel abroad for receiving treatment for his rare medical condition affecting his vision was declined predominantly on the ground that the petitioner failed to set up any case to set aside the LOC.
The Trial Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner tried to flee from the country soon after the registration of the FIR and because of that reason LOC was requested to be opened by the E.D. so that the petitioner could be apprehended in case he tries to flee away. While considering the issue of bail, the Supreme Court in SLP (CRL) inter alia directed that the petitioner will not travel abroad without the leave of the Trial Court.
Special Judge inter alia held that the petitioner had not moved any application before the learned Trial Court dealing with the EOW case for seeking permission to travel abroad. In respect of the medical urgency, the Trial Court was of the view that there is no record to show that the petitioner could not receive the treatment safely in India.
The petitioner is a British citizen of Indian origin and has been residing in India since 2008. The petitioner is a director in M/S Zenica Cars India Pvt. Ltd and M/S Zenica Performance Cars Pvt Ltd. The aforesaid companies are registered under the Companies Act, of 1956 and are the dealers of Audi and Porsche cars.
The accused acting on behalf of the company approached the HDFC bank to seek various credit facilities and as per the banking procedures, the credit facilities were extended by the bank based on various financial and other documents and information provided by the accused acting on behalf of the company and to secure the credit facilities a Deed of Hypothecation was executed between the Petitioner and the bank.
It was alleged that during a comprehensive stock audit conducted by the bank, it was discovered that the various documents which were submitted by the Petitioner were forged and to obtain the same, Petitioner had misrepresented their outstanding balance with J & K Bank, leading to a huge difference between the due amount shown of Rs.11,64,48,702/- and the actual amount owed was Rs. 49,51,50,702/-.
In due course of the audit scheme, it was also found that the petitioner had fraudulently submitted a list of 97 demo cars as existing in the stock. However, it was found that only 42 cars were located during the stock audit. Out of the 97 demo cars provided by Zenica Cars, there were 32 demo cars which were funded by HDFC Bank Ltd. and the amount against the sale of these cars was outstanding.
Mr. Ramesh Gupta, senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent registered the case against the petitioner, his father, and the other accused persons. However, the petitioner was not arrested during the investigation by the respondent. On 19.02.2021 the respondent filed a complaint under sections 44 & 45 of PMLA, 2002 before the Learned Judge Tis Hazari and the Learned trial court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons inter-alia against the petitioner to which he appeared before the Learned Judge and was subsequently granted regular bail vide order dated 13.01.2022 but with the condition that the accused shall not leave India without the prior permission of the court, which is at the stage of scrutiny of documents.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has placed an affidavit duly signed by the petitioner’s mother, Mrs. Balbinder Singh Todd; his grandmother Mrs. Mohinder Singh Todd that they are out of their own free will and are ready to submit/deposit their passports. Learned senior counsel submitted that the wife of the petitioner is willing to accompany the petitioner to London for his care, however, if this court deems fit, is also willing to deposit her passport. Further, the British passports of the two daughters of the petitioner will be also deposited.
The petitioner is ready & willing to furnish two more sureties amounting to Rs. 5 Crores, if this Hon’ble Court permits him to travel, which can be released upon his return back to India. It has further been stated that the petitioner is permitted to go to London then he will be staying at his sister’s house at 25 Woodside A venue, Beaconsfield, HP9 1 JJ; and he will be using telephone no. 00447799531525; he upon reaching London, will share his live location or Google pin with the Investigating Officer.; lastly, he will appear through VC before the Learned Trial Court, if on the date of hearing, he is in London and no adjournment will be sought by his counsels due to his absence.
The ground on which the petitioner is seeking permission to travel abroad is allegedly to undergo, “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy”. It is a matter of the record that this treatment is widely available in India. It is also a matter of record that the Medanta Hospital as well as Dr Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS have opined that the treatment of “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy” is widely available in many hospitals in India including Medanata Hospital as well as Dr Rajendra Prasad, Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS.
The Enforcement Director (ED) has contended that treatment of “Prophylactic Laser Retinopexy” is available in India and permission should not be granted to the petitioner to travel abroad. The contention of the petitioner that the passports of her daughter or father may be detained, cannot be accepted as admittedly they are also British nationals.
Since the Trial Court has dealt with the matter by the law, there is no ground for the same and the single-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma dismissed the writ petition.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
