TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the Accused/Applicant Begaim Akynova. Reply to the application seeking permission to travel home moved by the accused Begaim Akynova has been filed by the Department. Be taken on record. Heard. Perused. Considering the facts as mentioned in the application, the application is allowed and applicant / accused Begaim Akynova is permitted to travel home for one year from today i.e. 06.01.2021 to 05.01.2022 subject to the following conditions : 1. that she shall deposit the fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- approximate with the department as fine of Rs. 12 lakhs has been imposed on her by the department. 2. that she will furnish a security amount of Rs. 50,000/- with an undertaking to report back in the Court on or before 06.01.2022 failing which the said amount shall stands forfeited without giving any further notice; 3. that she shall furnish address of her home; 4. that she shall not seek extension of her stay on any ground; 5. that she shall authorize her counsel to receive notice on her behalf during her stay at her home country; 6. that she shall properly instruct her counsel for proceeding further in the case during her outstay and no adjournmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitting to the effect that there ought to be a fair adjudication and application of mind at the time of disposal of any prayer by a Court. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been a fragrant violation of the judicial comity of Courts and a travesty violation of justice in the instant case with the respondent having flouted all possible norms and the hierarchy of the judicial system. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the very same respondent i.e. Begaim Akynova, holder of Khazakistan passport no.8622501 who is petitioner no.2 in CRL.M.C.1529/2020, which was disposed of vide the judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2020. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said respondent no.2 of that petition i.e. CRL.M.C.1529/2020 with another petitioner therein named Aida Askerbkova, holder of Kyrgyzstan passport no.AC3167256 had both assailed the order dated 30.05.2020 of the learned ASJ-03, New Delhi in CR No. 881/2019 vide which the order dated 10.12.2019 of the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi had been upheld declining the prayer of Aida Askerbkova, the petitioner no.1 of CRL.M.C.1529/2020 and of petitioner no.2, Beg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who is the counsel for the respondent no.2 even today and has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing. Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate is indicated to be the counsel for Begaim Akynova, the respondent to the present petition as the applicant of the application filed before the learned CMM, New Delhi which was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2021. The record indicates that the application that was filed on behalf of Begaim Akynova, the respondent to the present petition before this Court and the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi, filed her application through her counsels Mr.Rohit Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate, and as depicted through the appearance in the proceedings in CRL.M.C.1529/2020 vide judgment dated 31.08.2020, whereby the prayer made by Begaim Akynova to travel abroad, is expressly declined, shows the appearance of both Mr.Rohit Kumar Pandey, Advocate and Mr.Sajan Shankar Prasad, Advocate for Begaim Akynova, the present respondent as well before the learned CMM, New Delhi as per the application placed on record as Annexure-F to the present petition which application reads to the effect:- "APPLICATION F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Applicant is bound to stay in India since December 2019, it has been more than 1 year for her in India without having any way out to meet her daily basic needs to survive. d. It is further submitted that the Applicant requires to meet her family member only after depositing the entire penalized amount, there would be no prejudice for the department if the permission is granted for a particular time period only. e. Furthermore, considering the unconductive pandemic situations arise throughout the globe, it is exceedingly difficult for the applicants to meet his day to day needs presently in India. Therefore, she may be allowed for a particular period of time only, in which she can grapple-up with the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances and then return back to India. f. It is further submitted that investigation is already completed, and no further recovery is required at this point of time. Permission to travel her home would not affect the current case in any manner. g. That in a remarkably similar kind of cases, this Hon'ble Court recently allowed various Applicants to travel their home in these hard times. It is also pertinent to mention herein that in some of those ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other co-accused Aida Askerbkova, the applicant had chosen not to press on her relief, that the Sessions Court had passed an order denying permission to the applicant to travel to her home but thereafter the applicant has averred in paragraph 5 that the applicant along with the coaccused chose to prefer an appeal under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Delhi High Court, wherein vide order dated 31.08.2020, this Court allowed the accused Aida Askerbkova to travel to her home and subsequently the Tribunal, Commission of Customs has imposed a fine of Rs. 20 lakhs on the applicant. Significantly, there is not an iota or a whisper of any averment in the application that was filed by the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi to the effect that the prayer made by the present respondent i.e. the applicant before the learned CMM, New Delhi to travel abroad to her hometown was expressly declined vide order dated 31.08.2020 of this Court in CRL.M.C.1529/2020 vide observations in paragraph 24 thereof. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the very same counsel who has filed the application before the learned Trial Court, which was disposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tingly, the copy of the application was served upon a prosecutor, who at no point of time, had dealt with the present matter either before Ld.CMM, New Delhi, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi or this Hon'ble Court. The Special Public Prosecutor filed reply date 21.12.2020, Annexure-G.", to submit to the effect that the counsel on whom the application was served had at no time dealt with the proceedings neither before the learned CMM, New Delhi nor before the learned ASJ nor before this Court. Be that as it may, the same itself does not suffice for the learned counsel who put in appearance even on behalf of the Department of Customs on 06.01.2021 before the learned Trial Court, to have not made any inquiries from the Customs Department specifically in view of the averments in paragraph 5 of the application that had been filed on behalf of the respondent dated 16.12.2020 before the learned Trial Court, in as much as, there is not even a whisper of an averment in the application dated 16.12.2020 filed by the applicant thereof i.e. the respondent herein as to the fate of that application. In the circumstances of the case, as brought forth through the entire record depicted herein....